For lighttpd vs. Apache. lighttpd is a lightweight webserver, and does
have a real performance benefit over serving out images with bloated Apache.
As for lighttpd vs. nginx... I believe the author of lighttpd actually
had some contact with Wikimedia, perhaps a bit of changes were made to
lighttpd or something for them... Dunno... So whether anyone else gos
for lighttpd vs. nginx there's no relevant benefit of one over the other.
~Daniel Friesen(Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) of:
-The Nadir-Point Group (
)
--Games-G.P.S. (
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Daniel Friesen
<dan_the_man(a)telus.net> wrote:
No PHP benefit either way.
There's no reason to go to nginx for performance, but there's also no
reason not to use it.
Personally, I've got a preference for nginx, so I'm using it myself.
The only reason Apache is still being used, AFAIK, is because it's
what Wikimedia has always used. With no gain in switching, you may as
well stick with whatever you have to avoid transition costs. lighttpd
didn't even exist in 2001, let alone nginx.
Actually, is there any reason lighttpd is used for image serving?
Just because it was trendy when the image servers got set up, or
because it actually has concrete advantages of some kind?