Portal Home > Knowledgebase > Articles Database > apache vs kloxo (lighthttpd)
apache vs kloxo (lighthttpd)
| Posted by phauk, 01-15-2010, 07:49 PM |
| Has anyone noticed that the apache load is much higher using lighthttpd?
I have a 2.8GHz processor, 2GB RAM, with 100Mbps connection, but the CPU load is always over 90%
here is two seperate top results...
What do you think?
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
12149 apache 40 0 27904 10m 3784 S 11.6 0.5 0:11.87 httpd
9764 apache 40 0 27880 10m 3828 S 11.2 0.5 0:42.45 httpd
9514 apache 40 0 31924 14m 3856 S 10.9 0.7 0:40.46 httpd
3693 mysql 40 0 132m 25m 6056 S 8.9 1.3 50:27.01 mysqld
12148 apache 40 0 31896 13m 3692 R 8.6 0.7 0:09.60 httpd
6531 apache 40 0 29964 10m 3936 S 6.3 0.5 1:13.87 httpd
9516 apache 40 0 27892 10m 3884 S 3.6 0.5 0:43.47 httpd
12153 apache 40 0 28152 10m 3776 S 0.7 0.5 0:10.90 httpd
6721 apache 40 0 29948 10m 3920 S 0.3 0.5 1:13.44 httpd
7092 apache 40 0 29972 10m 3928 S 0.3 0.5 1:10.01 httpd
7097 apache 40 0 34204 14m 3964 S 0.3 0.7 1:09.97 httpd
9098 apache 40 0 28452 10m 3832 S 0.3 0.5 0:43.85 httpd
12151 apache 40 0 27900 10m 3796 S 0.3 0.5 0:12.90 httpd
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
3693 mysql 40 0 132m 25m 6056 S 57.8 1.3 50:44.34 mysqld
6721 apache 40 0 29948 10m 3920 S 10.6 0.5 1:18.46 httpd
7097 apache 40 0 34208 14m 3972 R 6.9 0.7 1:12.73 httpd
26308 apache 40 0 32832 12m 3944 R 6.9 0.6 3:42.03 httpd
9764 apache 40 0 30192 12m 3828 R 6.6 0.6 0:44.78 httpd
9514 apache 40 0 31924 14m 3864 S 4.0 0.7 0:44.32 httpd
12139 apache 40 0 28480 10m 3764 S 4.0 0.5 0:14.38 httpd
12153 apache 40 0 27896 10m 3776 S 4.0 0.5 0:12.99 httpd
13445 root 40 0 2332 1076 792 R 0.7 0.1 0:00.06 top
|
| Posted by tech163, 01-16-2010, 08:05 AM |
| I personally use nginx, and is very satisfied with it. Lighttpd has many memory leak issues, and Apache is a memory hog. You should also consider the free version of Litespeed, which is good if you are only running a site or two.
|
| Posted by PeakVPN-KH, 01-18-2010, 02:03 AM |
| That's common. Apache is much more robust with a standard install than Lighttpd. You have to also remember that lighttpd is built to be a leaner/higher performance web server.
Apache is kind of like the jack of all trades. It's extremely flexible, everyone is comfortable with it, been around for years, and that can tend to equal a bit bulky
|
| Posted by shawn_linux, 01-18-2010, 11:04 AM |
| Yes rightly said apache is much more comfortable to tweak and work on then lighthttpd.
|
| Posted by CodyRo, 01-18-2010, 12:27 PM |
| It's not that simple.. Apache has a few different MPM's including the normal "prefork" as well as "worker" or the threaded version (also has an "event" one but it's wayyyy too new to use in production).
The reason for mentioning this is you're lumping Apache in as if it's the only way to run it.. we need more details. How are you running PHP? What MPM are you running?
|
| Posted by tsj5j, 01-18-2010, 12:48 PM |
| In general, I would recommend nginx over apache any day.
The only exception is if you're providing hosting.
|
| Posted by bvsonline, 01-19-2010, 02:32 PM |
| Try litespeed... It is much better than apache and lighthttpd. If your server currently has apache installed, litespeed can be configured to work using the configuration file of apache itself. Also, integration with cpanel can also be done easily.
|
Add to Favourites 
Print this Article
Also Read
