httpd and memory usage

[Thomas Hurst]

* David Banning (david+dated+1119209345.99f472 at 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/