lighttpd support

[anton_latvia]

Is WHM/Cpanel planning to add lighttpd support, instead of Apache? May be someone has already tried to change Apache to lighttpd? On our servers, that does not use CPanel, it showed really nice results - high performance with low load.

[Valetia]

Is WHM/Cpanel planning to add lighttpd support, instead of Apache? May be someone has already tried to change Apache to lighttpd? On our servers, that does not use CPanel, it showed really nice results - high performance with low load.

We would also be very interested in Cpanel support for lighttpd as an alternative to Apache, such as what Cpanel has done with pureFTPd vs ProFTPd.

[chirpy]

I very much doubt it. They have enough on their plate with apache2. If you want to suggest it to them:
http://forums.cpanel.net/showthread.php?t=38350

[dicen]

Is WHM/Cpanel planning to add lighttpd support, instead of Apache? May be someone has already tried to change Apache to lighttpd? On our servers, that does not use CPanel, it showed really nice results - high performance with low load.

I will second this. Lighttpd support would put Cpanel in an entire new market. A VPS is memory limited. Lighttpd uses significantly less memory (10% of 70MB or so for only 15 Apache 1.3 processes) then Apache. (This is probably why it is so fast, as most of the code can run from the processor cache.) VPS hosting providers could significantly increase the number of VPSs per server from the memory saving alone. That may make them chose Cpanel over Plesk or other control pannels.

Cpanel really needs to get off their collective butts here and innovate like crazy. Their window of opportunity is rapidly closing. I am amazed how many times this is being said in these forums. Anyone remember Novell, Lotus, CPM, Visicalc, etc...? These guys need to be working weekends. I have been there, and I have done it. This is it guys. It won't come again.

dicen

[Servax]

The thing about Lighttpd is the limitation on features, such as no .htaccess and such.

[anton_latvia]

I know, I know.. After working with lighttpd for some time I understand, that my first question was a bit incorrect.

[tom_taylor]

Check here, Nginx 0.5 is even faster (with its php-fastcgi) AND supports .htaccess files

check out the NginxNews too!

I think with regards to the htaccess files, the syntax may differ compared with apache - but at least we have its support (unlike lighty!)

I reckon Nginx is mature enough to lighten up WHM and cPanel

• Apache 2.2.3 = 4439 req/s
• Lighttpd 1.4.11 = 7150 req/s
• Nginx 0.4.12 = 8700 req/s

http://blog.kovyrin.net/2006/04/17/t...onfigurations/
http://blog.kovyrin.net/2006/04/04/n...ul-web-server/
http://blog.zabiello.com/articles/20...-apache-killer
http://zh.stikipad.com/notes/show/nginx
http://blog.kovyrin.net/2006/05/30/n...fastcgi-howto/


It also supports nearly all mods which LightTPD does, and probably does it better!

Lets get this into WHM!


my idea: http://forums.cpanel.net/showthread....d=1#post286555


Cheers everyone!

[chirpy]

If you want to make a suggestion to cPanel for such a move you should log an enhancement request in bugzilla and post back the link here for people to vote on it. That said, I'd be surprised if cPanel moved away from Apache for a few reasons:

1. It has a long and respected history, even if it isn't the very fastest HTTPD server, especially as part of the LAMP philosophy

2. There is a wealth and depth of knowlegde for Apache that is hard to compete with

3. There are hundreds of modules that can be used with Apache which give additional functionality that might be hard to match with other servers that would be required for a web hosting solution

I'm not saying it's not worth pursuing, but it might be difficult to make a convincing argument to move from both a technical and (especially) a commercial standpoint.

[tom_taylor]

Hiya!

I agree with where you are coming from and i've always used apache since the very begining too.

From a commercial point, using Nginx would be great its performance and reliability under load - compared with apache.

Apache can still be used, but a proxy between Apache and Nginx woul be fantastic, allowing Nginx to take the strain.

It has many modules too like apache and even supports .htaccess files and auth, but really it would be worth trying out.

The only draw backs is what ever is set into apache's conf, would also be required in Nginx's conf also (but i'm sure the scripts in cpanel can be adopted to make that work)

If there's a way for Nginx to capture a dynamic config for the host requested, then they're shouln't be a problem.

PHP and static files (such as images, downloads etc) will fly with Nginx, and Apache could then deliver other content with its modules for say JSP with the mod_jk mod for Tomcat, etc

This server is used by many hosts, sites and providors in Russia due to Nginx developer being of that origin and wanted to create a better and faster httpd than apache, for various reasons such as cheaper to operate on cheaper and lower spec hardware, bandwidth, and a httpd server written for the russian language and people!

I'm trying my best myself to work on a solution, but if someone like yourself wouldlike to have a go also, we may be onto a winner!

Cheers!

[mike1s]

I would never use ngnix because its Russian and if you watch the news you will understand why I hate Russia

If you need a link to a news article about why here you go: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081600659.html
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...Op-GGBxH7vSjZA
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081502199.html

[capoti]

I would never use ngnix because its Russian and if you watch the news you will understand why I hate Russia

I have no problem using Russian applications. Russians are COOL. It is your problem and there is no need to post such a stupid message in here.

[FreedomBI]

Faster is usually better. But taking a quick look through the docs for both, I didn't get any impression that they support suexec. The lighttpd FAQ states that there is an unofficial experimental version.

To me, the lack of official supported suexec/phpsuexec would be a deal breaker.