Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for professional system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I've heard the G-WAN beats all others hands down. Has anyone had any experience with this server? I am worried about buffer overruns, since scripting seems to be in C.

Thanks!

share|improve this question
4  
@Jacko - The definition of fastest is ambiguous, you want to serve static files fast ? Or serve dynamic pages fast? And what sort of programming languages you are using? –  ajreal Nov 25 '10 at 7:45
    
Thanks, ajreal. I need this for static pages. –  Jacko Nov 28 '10 at 13:39
    
G-WAN seems to be the fastest for both static and dynamic contents, and it supports Java, C, C++, D and Objective-C scripts (PHP is "in the works"). –  Gil Apr 10 '12 at 11:09
add comment

migrated from stackoverflow.com Nov 25 '10 at 17:13

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

3 Answers

nginx is really fast, litespeed and lighttpd are also very nice. I prefer lighttpd myself.

share|improve this answer
    
thanks, Raymil. –  Jacko Nov 28 '10 at 13:45
add comment

Your motivation is dubious; even the slowest web server can fill up a 1 Gbit ethernet with modest server hardware on small static-content workloads (i.e. content fits inside buffer cache).

The performance of your web server does not matter, mostly. If you care, you're optimising the wrong thing. Optimise your time, not its.

share|improve this answer
    
Well, MarkR, slow inefficient servers will crumble under heavy load (10,000 connection problem) so I would say that speed is important. Plus, not everyone can afford the latest, most expensive hardware/windows licenses. So, if I can run NGinX on a single, older Linux box and handle the load equivalent to IIS load balanced on 4 brand new boxes, than I would choose the former. –  Jacko Nov 28 '10 at 13:44
1  
If you have 10,000 connections, the bandwidth will cost you a lot of money; therefore you'll be able to afford a newer server. Additionally, servers are not a major component of the cost of hosting commercial web sites; datacentre space/power, and bandwidth are far more significant. Any web server can fill up a 1Gbit pipe on a modest machine on most workloads. –  MarkR Nov 28 '10 at 19:46
1  
Also, if you're really serving high volumes of static content, you will find it more cost effective (again, bandwidth cost, not servers!) to use a CDN (content-delivery network) and let them worry about it. –  MarkR Nov 28 '10 at 19:48
    
Thanks, MarkR. I read your comments, and realized that I don't really know what I'm talking about here :) Now, on to the issue you raise: I need this for an intranet, so bandwidth cost is not an issue. But, hardware and license costs are issues. So, a fast web server on Linux means no windows licenses and less hardware to buy. –  Jacko Nov 29 '10 at 5:13
1  
If it is an intranet, it is highly unlikely that you will get 10,000 connections; intranets have the advantage that you can find the size of your audience easily, and it cannot grow beyond the staff of the company (excepting things like company mergers). However, most intranet sites run web applications not static web sites, so you'll want to optimise the application, not the web sevrer (which really doesn't matter in that case) –  MarkR Nov 29 '10 at 11:13
add comment

I am worried about buffer overruns, since scripting seems to be in C.

If you are affraid of creating buffer overflows in your C scripts then use G-WAN Java or C# scripts which rely on 'managed code'.

share|improve this answer
    
"If you are afraid of C, don't use it" - that's an answer? –  pjmorse Sep 23 '12 at 17:37
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.