Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

There are times when you need to spare hardware resources (either to keep using legacy hardware, to play the embedded card, or just to be efficient because a large footprint is trashing CPU caches, leading to unacceptable levels of idle-states).

In this spirit, some efforts have been made to make 'light' ports of Java or Mono (C# for Linux), and they range in the 80-50 MB (instead of the 100-200 MB).

Add a Web server (Apache, IIS, etc.) to the scripting engine and you can happily dive into the GB (IIS + .Net) only to load the tool in memory.

Anybody with more modest tools in the specs area?

share|improve this question

migrated from Aug 16 '10 at 13:42

This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.

lighttpd + django should be pretty lightweight.

share|improve this answer
Good point! That's much better than the mainstream solutions. – Anonymous Aug 16 '10 at 9:28
Oops! Just forgot G-WAN's 120 KB. Hard to beat this one. – Anonymous Aug 16 '10 at 10:05

nginx is known for it's superb performance and low resource usage (about 2.4 MB the last time I heard of it). The down side is, you appearently have to recompile the whole server, if you want to include a new module.

As for languages, I always like to point everyone (especially web developers) to haXe, for a number of reasons. In this case, because the NekoVM is a possible target. It has quite a low footprint, decent speed and allows in-memory persistency. However there's currently no way to run NekoVM on an nginx server. Which gives you the chance to step in and become a hero ;-)

Also haXe's C++ backend will soon be worked on to be suitable for web server development. As you seem to have experience with C++, this may be of interest to you.


share|improve this answer

It's difficult to find comparisons which help to decide, but the tests below use the same tool and procedure used by the Open-Source Phoronix benchmark.

Here are a couple of performance/CPU/RAM comparisons of Nginx, Lighttpd and G-WAN available here and there.

Both tests use different clients (ab is single-thread and weighttp, made by Lighttpd, is multi-thread), different CPUs (an i3 dual-Core CPU vs a XEON CPU with 6 Cores) and different versions of the servers, but the hierarchy is the same (except for the memory footprint: in this matter, the second test's winner is different from the first test).

The smallest footprint comes with G-WAN (a 150 KB process) which supports Java, C, C++, D, and Objective-C scripts natively while others require to use FastCGI backends.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.