small suggestion on the default VPS HTTP server

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

class101

New Member
That would be awesome KnownHost installs by default Lighttpd instead of Apache on the VPS machines, this would introduce it to new users that don't know it and because it uses far less memory/CPU than apache, this can be only good I think for a VPS machine :)

My 2cent suggestion ;)

<=== discovered lighttpd some days ago & loves it ;)

and it can handle big sites look here:

a list of large sites running lighttpd
 
khiltd said:
I don't think very many people would think that was awesome at all.
Click to expand...
Care to share why? I'm curious of its cons...

class101, In general Knownhost supports what the software vendors, i.e the control panel. For example, if cpanel started supporting it, I'm sure Knownhost would implement it.

In any case though, if you ask Knownhost to install it, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't do it for you.
 
ppc said:
Care to share why? I'm curious of its cons...
Click to expand...

It would break most, if not all of the control panels they offer, result in a neverending stream of support tickets from people experiencing compatibility issues, and just generally muck things up that didn't need to be. Anyone who knows what lighttpd is and knows that they need it for some specific reason should be able to install it themselves as well as assume all the associated responsibility. Christening it the default just to make a handful of Rails apologists happy would not be a wise business decision.
 
ppc said:
Care to share why? I'm curious of its cons...

class101, In general Knownhost supports what the software vendors, i.e the control panel. For example, if cpanel started supporting it, I'm sure Knownhost would implement it.

In any case though, if you ask Knownhost to install it, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't do it for you.
Click to expand...
Ha yeah riight I forgot about panels support isn't that good than apache :) but the server iss so far better than apache, at least for VPS there is no comparaisons possible with apache, tell to anyone that uses lighttpd on VPS why they're keeping it and why bigs sites starts to use it :)
 
class101 said:
but the server iss so far better than apache, at least for VPS there is no comparaisons possible with apache
Click to expand...

Well since you have first-hand experience with this matter maybe you can give us a real world example of how the installation of lighttpd has resulted in a tangible improvement to a site's functionality that isn't based on some unsubstantiated evangelism and provide a little more info on how you came to reach these conclusions over the course of just a few short days. "Better" is a relative term, and a handful of BitTorrent trackers, free image hosts and Romanian dating blogs is not really all that impressive since those sites don't really do very much, and nobody over the age of 13 is going to get all that upset when they go down (which they do; frequently).

YouTube is certainly a prominent example, but they had to do quite a bit of work modifying the lighttpd code to get it to do what they wanted and that divergence is going to translate into monumental headaches when it comes time to upgrade down the road. Whether or not lighttpd was the "better" choice for them is something only future YouTube employees who have to maintain their patchwork monster can answer.

lighttpd has some advantages over Apache, but as a product, it's quite immature, and by and large people use it out of a desire to look cool and impress kids on IRC with a paper airplane PNG on their blog. Things like this might be important to say, DreamHost, but most people just want a solution that works more often than not.
 
here it just runs better than apache without any code mods that 's all what I need to say. Short and fast like my sentence, no need to proove that is a crap tool , you won't because it's rocking you at least we know you don't like it, thanks! (and no gameover I already owned a leaseweb dedicated server with apache blablabla...)

Just would like to say I have vbulletin + vbseo wich is a full rewrite url system, porting it from apache to lighttpd requires some work to update rewrite rules but once all is setup I have all working like apache without its overloading stuffs, to you to choose then :) end of the discussion for me.
 
So basically it's better because you said so. I have a feeling that's the end of all discussions for you.
 
rezag said:
Of course everybody knows IIS is the way to go

</extremely bad attempt at humour>

;)
Click to expand...

Of course we do.

If we manage a junior high or high school network and are forced to use Windows or else suffer the consequences.
 
Jeren said:
Now now, be nice. :p
Click to expand...

I think I am being nice considering his behavior here after he firewalled all his own ports and attempted to e-blackmail KH into fixing the "mysterious" problems that followed with ridiculous, nonsensical threats of negative reviews in the most surly manner imaginable.

But I agree, if IIS isn't made the default web server on all KH accounts by tomorrow morning I'll totally say something really, really mean somewhere on the internet. I'm so angry I might even use complete sentences that make sense.
 
Thread closed. If Paul, Joel or Jay want to reply to this request they will, but again KH supports what the CP vendor supports so I doubt this will be implemented any time soon.

Regards,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top