Boa vs Apache? or maybe khttpd

vargen · Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2003 4:22 pm Post subject: Boa vs Apache? or maybe khttpd

Anyone have experience from more than one of those? Can't really deside wich one I should go with.. Pro's / Con's ??
_________________
"We are known by the tracks we leave behind.."

To · Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2003 8:32 pm Post subject:

I use Apache for 8 years or so. And I gotta say that it has become evene better.
I don't have any pr's for Boa vs Apache.
Apache can use an huge amont of module, almost every modules you found on the web are supported.
Apache can manage extremly loaded sites.
Apache it's easy to configure.
etc etc etc.

Tó
_________________

------------------------------------------------
Linux Gandalf 3.2.35-grsec
Gentoo Base System version 2.2
------------------------------------------------

vargen · Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2003 1:45 am Post subject:

Yes, true.. but those who I've spoken to that have experience of the others says that they are way faster than Apache and leaves Apache way behind in speedtests.. now, I found only one: http://lists.alt.org/pipermail/khttpd-users/2001-January/000122.html
and yes, Apache is slower.. but do I even sence the difference in real life..
_________________
"We are known by the tracks we leave behind.."

kashani · Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2003 10:44 am Post subject: eh?

Well the correct answer is... it depends on what you want to do with your http server and how much time you want to devote to it.

Apache is going to be the most widely understood, best docs, largest community, most modules, and support just about anything you want to do. Of course all these function come at a price, lower performance.

Boa IS fast, but lacking in "what can I do with it department?" As far as I can tell from the docs you can say goodbye to mod_perl, mod_php, chroot, and any type of ACL. thttpd looks to be a much better alternative with comperable speed, more features, and some cool throttling stuff.

khttpd is static content only. And with the state of developement or lack there of I'd go with tux instead.

In production we use Apache for the frontend and thttpd for static content servering. We are pushing around 70-90Mb/s out of the web farms at peak. Generally Apache should have no problem scaling to 20-30Mb/s on decent hardware assuming you've done the proper tuning, increased file descriptors, etc for your usage.

Being fast is not the same thing as being useful.

kashani
_________________
Will personally fix your server in exchange for motorcycle related shop tools in good shape.

i3839 · n00b Joined: 16 Mar 2003 Posts: 10

Boa has a chroot option (maybe only the newer one, I don't know).

khttpd will be dropped in the next kernel, and the next kernel will be great, so don't stick to khttpd ;).

I would use thttpd for simple webservers which don't need any special modules like kashani said. There is a server comparison on the thttpd site too, I guess it's somewhat outdated, but still usefull: http://www.acme.com/software/thttpd/

punx · n00b Joined: 08 Jan 2003 Posts: 33 Location: Cologne_de

I really don't think there is a serious alternative to apache.org's
httpd-server.
It' s so flexible you can teach it nearly everything you want.
:!:

regards punx
_________________
...oh god i am the american dream but now i smell like gasoline and i am the miserable son of a bush..

Ox- · Guru Joined: 19 Jun 2003 Posts: 305

I've messed around with other servers too because of "performance". I'm tired of that. I like being able to just plug shit in and having it work so now I only use Apache.

You can find patches for Apache that help performance, e.g.: State Threads[1] and mod_log_spread[2]

[1] http://aap.sourceforge.net/
[2] http://www.lethargy.org/mod_log_spread/

To · Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2003 8:51 am Post subject:

There's only some performance problems with extremely loaded websites. I've runned sites with over 50 SQL querys 1 one page using PHP. Still Apache gives me more trust than any other httpd server.

Tó
_________________

------------------------------------------------
Linux Gandalf 3.2.35-grsec
Gentoo Base System version 2.2
------------------------------------------------

uzik · Apprentice Joined: 17 Apr 2003 Posts: 257

I'm using Boa. It was easy to setup and is faster than Apache.
It doesn't have all the fancier features of Apache though (access control
being the primary one that comes to mind). If you don't need those
things you might give it a whirl.

alinv · Guru Joined: 19 Nov 2002 Posts: 395 Location: Bucharest

I', using both: apache2 for dynamic pages on port 80 and boa for static pages, images, css, flash etc. on 8080.
The load on my server decreased dramatically after I installed boa (it's hosting 5 pretty visited websites)
_________________
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better.
S.B.