From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 15 00:19:33 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D95116A41C; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 00:19:33 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tom.hurst@clara.net) Received: from spork.qfe3.net (spork.qfe3.net [212.13.207.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B55E43D4C; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 00:19:32 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tom.hurst@clara.net) Received: from [81.104.55.176] (helo=voi.aagh.net) by spork.qfe3.net with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1DiLcx-0002K4-So; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 01:19:31 +0100 Received: from freaky by voi.aagh.net with local (Exim 4.51 (FreeBSD)) id 1DiLcx-0007pN-Bk; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 01:19:31 +0100 Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 01:19:31 +0100 From: Thomas Hurst To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20050615001931.GA29310@voi.aagh.net> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, questions@freebsd.org References: <20050611142103.GA77709@skytracker.ca> <20050614160407.GA4819@voi.aagh.net> <20050614192905.GB65187@skytracker.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050614192905.GB65187@skytracker.ca> Organization: Not much. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: Thomas Hurst X-RBL-Warning: 81.104.55.176 is in RBL blacklist at dnsbl.sorbs.net Cc: Subject: Re: httpd and memory usage X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 00:19:33 -0000 * David Banning (david+dated+1119209345.99f472@skytracker.ca) wrote: > > You might also consider switching to something like lighttpd, which > > uses a single process that's generally about 1/3 the size of an > > equivilent httpd process. > > I like these ideas. Thanks. What is the downside, if any, to using > lighttpd? Is it difficult to configure? No, it's very easy to get working, especially with FastCGI; it's just not quite as flexible as Apache in many respects. This isn't always (or even usually) a bad thing, but it depends what your needs are. -- Thomas 'Freaky' Hurst http://hur.st/