which lighweight server to use?

[Mutikasa]

I don't have many visitors, like 15 a day.
But I use PHP scripts and wordpress.

I want to save as much RAM as I can, so which server is the best for that?
I read here http://serversreview.net/this-is-wha...d-free-edition that litespeed uses less memory than nginx, but i don't know about litespeed vs. lighttpd.

Mutikasa Reviewed by Mutikasa on 11th Feb 2012. which lighweight server to use? I don't have many visitors, like 15 a day. But I use PHP scripts and wordpress. I want to save as much RAM as I can, so which server is the best for that? I read here http://serversreview.net/this-is-what-happened-between-apache-nginx-and-litespeed-free-edition that litespeed uses less memory than nginx, but i don't know about litespeed vs. lighttpd. Rating: 5

[masterbator]

litespeed is great, the paid version that is.
the free one has limited concurrent connections.

so if you don't wanna pay, best options are lighttpd or nginx.

[Mutikasa]

yes, but as i said, i don't have that many visitors. free 100 concurrent connections is more than enough.
As I understood, nginx uses more memory than litespeed.

[supportex]

For such amount of users you can go with nginx and have no troubles.

[okone]

People rave about litespeed, but nginx is the way to go.

I would always rather support open-source anyway.

[mahjong]

nginx would be the best. If it is true that it eats more ram, it has to be a veri insignificant difference.

[Lock Down]

I see a lot of opinions but why is it better? It has a lot of problems with scripts that use mod rewrites.

So an explanation other than the connections and number of sites that can be run would be appreciated.

[Mutikasa]

nginx would be the best. If it is true that it eats more ram, it has to be a veri insignificant difference.

it is not insignificant, look at this http://serversreview.net/this-is-wha...d-free-edition
nginx : 285MB
litespeed: 140MB

but I can't find how much lighttpd uses

[okone]

I see a lot of opinions but why is it better? It has a lot of problems with scripts that use mod rewrites.

So an explanation other than the connections and number of sites that can be run would be appreciated.

I can't say I have had any problems with 'scripts' in the past and I've run alot through it. When combined with php-fpm, it will easily out-perform apache.

For large scripts like wordpress you can use try_files in nginx for basic seo urls. Rewrites are generally not hard when you know how.

It is also a very good reverse proxy caching server (it was originally built purely for this purpose). It is a bit like having webserver capabilities in Varnish.

I'm so used to nginx (started using it at stable version 5 or 6) that I'm not sure I would even know my way around an apache vhost config anymore.

it is not insignificant, look at this http://serversreview.net/this-is-wha...d-free-edition
nginx : 285MB
litespeed: 140MB

but I can't find how much lighttpd uses

No need to bother considering lighttpd as its not even being developed anymore. That is one of the best things about nginx, they operate with under a very fast version system.

Ram usage largely depends on the configuration. You shouldn't really need more than 2 worker processes (1000 connections each) and this would probably bring usage down.

As I said before, the issue with litespeed is that most of the decent features come at a premium. Why would you pay when you can get them all on nginx?

[Mutikasa]

lighttpd not developed? how come when the last version was in december.
I had some problems setup php with nginx before