+- Support Forums (https://www.supportforums.net)
+-- Forum: Categories (https://www.supportforums.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=87)
+--- Forum: Webmaster Support (https://www.supportforums.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=36)
+---- Forum: Web Hosting (https://www.supportforums.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=40)
+---- Thread: Light HTTPD vs Apache (/showthread.php?tid=5407)
Light HTTPD vs Apache - OX!DE - 03-27-2010
What is better? What would you use? Why?
RE: Light HTTPD vs Apache - Omniscient - 03-27-2010
Apache is going to offer more extensibility, support, and compatibility.
Lighttpd is going to offer better scalability and efficiency.
You can also run both where lighttpd is the load balancer in front of an apache process.
Also Apache 2.2 imho is the most viable option for an httpd server.
RE: Light HTTPD vs Apache - Cida - 03-27-2010
I voted Apache, but I've never tried LightHTTPD, only Apache, so it's not really something to depend on, as I have nothing to compare to.
RE: Light HTTPD vs Apache - Kaleb - 04-05-2010
I go apache, better of the two Imo.
RE: Light HTTPD vs Apache - timestandstill - 04-07-2010
Apache. Perhaps nginx if you have extreme traffic.
RE: Light HTTPD vs Apache - 4EVERPROXY - 04-08-2010
I am forced to say Apache just for the simple reason i have not used anything else. One thing in which i dont like is that in newer versions of Apache they have made a hard limit of 256 max clients in which i had to figure out how to change. Most people would say that would be enough but i host proxies and need an odd configuration.
RE: Light HTTPD vs Apache - Swift Swim - 04-08-2010
Like mos tpeople here I voted apache as its the only one I've ever used.
RE: Light HTTPD vs Apache - Яichie - 04-11-2010
Apache, basically most reasons Omni gave.