Light webserver for simple, low traffic, static content site?

gabe_ · 2011-05-19 20:34:25

I have a simple site that I would like to host on a machine with minimal resources. What is my best bet?

lighttpd and nginx sell themselves as being lightweight in high traffic environments... But this is not a high traffic environment.

Apache seems like overkill.

thhtpd seems to be what I'm looking for, however the last release was in 2003, and I find that worrisome.

Can anyone offer me any insight?

Last edited by gabe_ (2011-05-19 20:41:39)

graysky · 2011-05-19 20:46:14

I have a netgear wireless router running Tomato. It hosts my local repo for a number of machines. I use lighttpd which is incredibly light weight. Lighttpd is my suggestion.

Last edited by graysky (2011-05-19 20:46:34)

toofishes · 2011-05-19 20:58:45

I'd go with nginx- it is as lightweight as you will get and good for in any environment. The exception would be on something like a router; I'd probably go with the httpd built into busybox if I needed something super lightweight (but also severely limited in functionality compared to nginx).

cactus · 2011-05-20 01:59:21

Agree with toofishes.

gabe_ · 2011-05-20 13:36:30

Interesting - I didn't realize BusyBox included an httpd. I've always thought of it as "coreutils for people who want to install Linux on a toaster."

To give some more information, I am building a MAME Cabinet. In addition to playing games, I'm considering using the machine to serve up a simple website with some information about the cabinet - mostly as a novelty.

I want to keep things light because I'm a raging minimalist, but also because I want the bulk of the machine's meager resources to be available for gaming.

Wittfella · 2011-05-20 14:42:19

There is also darkhttpd, in the repos, very small and simple.

Awebb · 2011-05-20 15:54:35

gabe_ wrote:

lighttpd and nginx sell themselves as being lightweight in high traffic environments... But this is not a high traffic

That's a language propblem. You assume that having a high traffic environment is a dependency for their "lightweigtness". You should understand the sentence as "lightweight, even in high traffic environments".

chris-kun · 2011-05-20 17:20:58

I've always been a fan of lighttpd. Mostly just personal preference for the syntax of the config file. Easy to use/understand and tons of documentation. I've heard some good things about nginx but there were some things I just couldn't get working properly, and I also think the way you define virtual hosts was way too cumbersome. In my lighttpd file it's just a single line I need to add.

gabe_ · 2011-05-20 17:22:22

Awebb wrote:

gabe_ wrote:
lighttpd and nginx sell themselves as being lightweight in high traffic environments... But this is not a high traffic
That's a language propblem. You assume that having a high traffic environment is a dependency for their "lightweigtness". You should understand the sentence as "lightweight, even in high traffic environments".

Not necessarily (though I do see your point).

I know that they are "full featured" httpd's. One of those features is being able to serve dynamic content across thousands of simultaneous connections. I realize I'm splitting hairs here, but I don't need those features. For this reason, I'm highly considering darkhttpd (thanks for the tip, Wittfella).

Arch Linux

#1 2011-05-19 20:34:25

Light webserver for simple, low traffic, static content site?

#2 2011-05-19 20:46:14

Re: Light webserver for simple, low traffic, static content site?

#3 2011-05-19 20:58:45

Re: Light webserver for simple, low traffic, static content site?

#4 2011-05-20 01:59:21

Re: Light webserver for simple, low traffic, static content site?

#5 2011-05-20 13:36:30

Re: Light webserver for simple, low traffic, static content site?

#6 2011-05-20 14:42:19

Re: Light webserver for simple, low traffic, static content site?

#7 2011-05-20 15:54:35

Re: Light webserver for simple, low traffic, static content site?

#8 2011-05-20 17:20:58

Re: Light webserver for simple, low traffic, static content site?

#9 2011-05-20 17:22:22

Re: Light webserver for simple, low traffic, static content site?

Board footer