Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Apache HTTP Server vs lighttpd: What are the differences?
Introduction:
Apache HTTP Server and lighttpd are both popular web servers used to serve web content to clients over the internet. While they both perform the same basic function, there are some key differences between the two that distinguish them from each other.
Performance: One of the main differences between Apache HTTP Server and lighttpd lies in their performance. Lighttpd is known for its lightweight and efficient design, making it suitable for handling high traffic and resource-intensive workloads. On the other hand, Apache HTTP Server is a more feature-rich and flexible server but can be relatively heavier in terms of resource consumption.
Configuration: Another key difference is in the configuration approach. Apache HTTP Server uses a more traditional and extensive configuration file (httpd.conf), which allows for fine-grained control over various server aspects. Conversely, lighttpd adopts a more minimalistic approach with its configuration file (lighttpd.conf) being relatively simpler and easier to work with.
Modules and Extensions: Apache HTTP Server has an extensive ecosystem of modules and extensions that can be used to enhance its functionality. These modules can provide additional features like authentication, URL rewriting, caching, and more. Lighttpd, on the other hand, has a more limited selection of modules and extensions available, which might be a consideration for those seeking specific functionality.
Flexibility and Customization: With its modular architecture and vast ecosystem, Apache HTTP Server offers greater flexibility and customization options compared to lighttpd. Apache's modularity allows administrators to pick and choose which modules to enable or disable based on their specific requirements. Lighttpd, while lightweight and efficient, may have limited options for customization in comparison.
Operating System Compatibility: Apache HTTP Server is designed to work on a wide range of operating systems, including Unix-like systems (Linux, BSD) and Windows. It has been extensively tested and is known for its stability and compatibility across different platforms. Lighttpd, on the other hand, primarily targets Unix-like systems but also offers support for Windows, albeit with potential limitations.
Community and Support: Both Apache HTTP Server and lighttpd have active communities and provide support through mailing lists, forums, and documentation. However, Apache HTTP Server, being the more widely adopted option, generally benefits from a larger community and a broader range of available resources, including third-party tutorials, articles, and troubleshooting guides.
In summary, Apache HTTP Server and lighttpd differ in terms of performance, configuration approach, available modules and extensions, flexibility and customization options, operating system compatibility, and community support. The choice between the two depends on the specific needs and requirements of the project, balancing factors such as performance optimization, feature richness, and customization capabilities.
I am diving into web development, both front and back end. I feel comfortable with administration, scripting and moderate coding in bash, Python and C++, but I am also a Windows fan (i love inner conflict). What are the votes on web servers? IIS is expensive and restrictive (has Windows adoption of open source changed this?) Apache has the history but seems to be at the root of most of my Infosec issues, and I know nothing about nginx (is it too new to rely on?). And no, I don't know what I want to do on the web explicitly, but hosting and data storage (both cloud and tape) are possibilities. Ready, aim fire!
I would pick nginx over both IIS and Apace HTTP Server any day. Combine it with docker, and as you grow maybe even traefik, and you'll have a really flexible solution for serving http content where you can take sites and projects up and down without effort, easily move it between systems and dont have to handle any dependencies on your actual local machine.
From a StackShare Community member: "We are a LAMP shop currently focused on improving web performance for our customers. We have made many front-end optimizations and now we are considering replacing Apache with nginx. I was wondering if others saw a noticeable performance gain or any other benefits by switching."
I use nginx because it is very light weight. Where Apache tries to include everything in the web server, nginx opts to have external programs/facilities take care of that so the web server can focus on efficiently serving web pages. While this can seem inefficient, it limits the number of new bugs found in the web server, which is the element that faces the client most directly.
I use nginx because its more flexible and easy to configure
I use Apache HTTP Server because it's intuitive, comprehensive, well-documented, and just works
For us, NGINX is a lite HTTP server easy to configure. On our research, we found a well-documented software we a lot of support from the community.
We have been using it alongside tools like certbot and it has been a total success.
We can easily configure our sites and have a folder for available vs enabled sites, and with the nginx -t command we can easily check everything is running fine.
- Server rendered HTML output from PHP is being migrated to the client as Vue.js components, future plans to provide additional content, and other new miscellaneous features all result in a substantial increase of static files needing to be served from the server. NGINX has better performance than Apache for serving static content.
- The change to NGINX will require switching from PHP to PHP-FPM resulting in a distributed architecture with a higher complexity configuration, but this is outweighed by PHP-FPM being faster than PHP for processing requests.
- The NGINX + PHP-FPM setup now allows for horizontally scaling of resources rather vertically scaling the previously combined Apache + PHP resources.
- PHP shell tasks can now efficiently be decoupled from the application reducing main application footprint and allow for scaling of tasks on an individual basis.
I was in a situation where I have to configure 40 RHEL servers 20 each for Apache HTTP Server and Tomcat server. My task was to 1. configure LVM with required logical volumes, format and mount for HTTP and Tomcat servers accordingly. 2. Install apache and tomcat. 3. Generate and apply selfsigned certs to http server. 4. Modify default ports on Tomcat to different ports. 5. Create users on RHEL for application support team. 6. other administrative tasks like, start, stop and restart HTTP and Tomcat services.
I have utilized the power of ansible for all these tasks, which made it easy and manageable.
Pros of Apache HTTP Server
- Web server479
- Most widely-used web server305
- Virtual hosting217
- Fast148
- Ssl support138
- Since 199644
- Asynchronous28
- Robust5
- Proven over many years4
- Mature2
- Perfomance2
- Perfect Support1
- Many available modules0
- Many available modules0
Pros of lighttpd
- Lightweight7
- Easy setup6
- Virtal hosting2
- Simplicity2
- Full featured2
- Proxy2
- Open source2
- Available modules1
- Fast1
- Security1
- Ssl support1
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Apache HTTP Server
- Hard to set up4