Quote:
Originally posted by punkrockgeekboy
I agree with you on that. Apache sucks
for static content, but it really isn't built for static content.. That's what content accelerators/proxies are for..
Some of the better ones I've used are :
Tux http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/t...ual/intro.html
Fnord http://www.fefe.de/fnord/
Boa http://www.boa.org/
Fnord is nice, because it uses tcpserver .. I'm a big fan of tcpserver/ucspi based applications (qmail & djbdns all the way for me).. Boa is nice because it's a bit more extensible than the others.. but tux is still the mean monster when it comes to pushing out lots of static content (even better when you gzip the content).
http://www.spec.org/web99/results/res2003q2/
Anybody interested in doing some benchmarking and submitting results?
|
A server OS selection should be tailored to the application requirements, i.e. multithreading, # of threads needs, memory management, multi-processor support, etc, etc. For a basic static content web server, it really does not matter that much.
My personal favorite is Solaris 9 with a kernel HTTP caching. Get a SUPER cheap Sun Ultra 1 or 2 on Ebay for $60-$80 with lots of memory... fine tune the TCP stack, install static/stripped build of Apache without the extra modules, enable module NMAP to server static content from the memory and you are all set. The perfomance is almost identical that you would get from a $3,000 box.
My 2Cents,
--A