The lighttpd Web Server

[Carla Schroder]

This gives a nice comparison of Lighttpd vs. Apache, and useful configuration examples.
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2007/04/05/the-lighttpd-web-server.html

[wmstudio]

Like written in the article Lighttpd is quite popular among Ruby on Rails developers although a new kid on the block has appeared for Ruby on Rails applications: "Mongrel". That said Apache still has its merits and combining Apache with Lighttpd enables you to e.g. let Apache do the PHP serving and Lighttpd do the Ruby on Rails processing. Apache's mod_proxy modules are perfect this. Using the mod_proxy modules you can also use a single Apache entry point and have a load balancing set of backend servers running Lighttpd.

[Carla Schroder]

That's some ingenious mixing-n-matching. I usually think of Lighttpd as a lightweight but still pretty feature-ful single-purpose HTTP server for dedicated servers that need an HTTP server. So obviously with a bit of creativity it can fit all kinds of roles, and so can Apache.

[wmstudio]

It seems the Lighttpd server package isn't not maintained as perhaps it should be:

"I’m sad to say that I have to recommend people not use lighttpd anymore. The author hasn’t updated the mod_proxy plugin and isn’t providing too much support for the bugs it has. If you’re running lighttpd and you constantly see 500 errors that are never recovered, then you should switch to Apache or another web server that can handle properly balancing backends."

src: http://mongrel.rubyforge.org/docs/lighttpd.html

[Carla Schroder]

Interesting article. I wish it were dated. It doesn't criticize Lighttpd, but the mod_proxy plugin. At http://www.lighttpd.net/2007/2/3/lighttpd-1-5-0-pre it says that mod_proxy has been replaced by mod-proxy-core, so maybe the Mongrel devs are behind the times. Lighttpd is definitely actively maintained; they kicked out yet another release on Sept 7.