Apache vs nginx vs lighttpd (And Cherokee!)

[eLight]

This thread was inspired by Lifetalk in the CB, sorry but I didn't set up Cherokee as I couldn't be bothered reading up as to how. But I'll include it next time! If you want to run some tests on your own machine that'd be cool for comparison (especially with hardware and stuff).

Server specs:
CPU: Xeon X3430 @ 2.40GHz
RAM: 8GB
HDD: 2x 1000GB in SW RAID 1.
BW: 100Mbps (Not that it matters...).

Server is CentOS 64bit, completely fresh format and the latest available kernel. Nothing has been ran on this server previously. There's no optimizations made server side, as this is to give a comparison of the http servers only. PHP 5.3.6 is used for all tests.

Apache is the "every mans" httpd. It is pretty good for hosting, very good at handling host names and what not, but it's kinda sucky for performance. That's not to say that it can't be configured well. But, to give a comparison to lighttpd and nginx, I've left Apache as is with a standard PHP CLI installation. Both nginx and lighttpd are very, very easy to install and configure with php-cgi. I've ran tests without any cache op as well as xCache and APC. Minimal configuration options are used besides the bare requirements for them to operate.

A concurrency of 10 is used for all tests, a total of 20,000 requests is made. Reading around the net you'll usually see recommendations such as "nginx for static" ... "lighttpd for php-cgi" for example, so, let's see if all these peoples thoughts are true

Static Files

KWWH's logo.png

Apache:
Requests per second: 6309.83 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 1.585 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 0.158 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)

lighttp:
Requests per second: 10981.46 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 0.911 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 0.091 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)

nginx:
Requests per second: 11286.66 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 0.886 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 0.089 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)

Winner: nginx

PHP file no xCache/APC

A PHP file with the following code is used. Nothing complex, just a simple piece of code that will out put "Hello!" 5 times.

<?php
$arr = array(1, 2, 3, 4, 5);
foreach ($arr as $val) {
echo "Hello!";
}
exit;
?>

Apache:
Requests per second: 3495.35 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 2.767 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 0.277 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)

nginx:
Requests per second: 3942.56 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 2.536 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 0.254 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)

lighttpd:
Requests per second: 4091.25 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 2.386 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 0.239 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)


Winner: lighttpd

With xCache:

Please note Apache is skipped for this test.

nginx:
Requests per second: 4118.34 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 2.428 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 0.243 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)

lighttpd:
Requests per second: 4596.48 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 2.176 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 0.218 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)


With APC:

nginx:
Requests per second: 4075.07 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 2.454 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 0.245 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)

lighttpd:
Requests per second: 4166.00 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 2.400 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 0.240 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)


Winner: May as well be a tie. Except lighttpd does perform better with it's "native" xCache, which I guess can be expected considering it's made by the same people.

Take this as you may. I am unbiased between nginx or lighttpd. I've used both and they both have their pro's and con's. Overall I think nginx is a better performer for proxy setups and static files whilst PHP just takes the cake for PHP. I guess this simple test proves that in a way. But either way, if you set up your server correctly you won't notice much difference between them. I definitely recommend them over Apache.

Another thing to bear in mind is that these results may differ highly to your own server, this server is a completely stock standard machine and there's many things you can do to increase the performance!

Cherokee vs Apache vs lighttpd vs nginx (Static only).

Thanks to Lifetalk!

His vacant box:
CPU x3440 @ 2.53GHz
8GB Memory
2x1TB Drives in LVM (consider this equal to SW RAID 0)
BW: 1gbps, not that it matters.
Tested file: KWWH logo

APACHE:
Requests per second: 10820.39 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 0.924 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 0.092 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)

CHEROKEE:
Requests per second: 12190.83 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 0.820 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 0.082 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)

NGINX:
Requests per second: 14842.53 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 0.674 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 0.067 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)

LIGHTY:
Requests per second: 13922.32 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 0.718 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 0.072 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)

eLight Reviewed by eLight on 12th May 2011. Apache vs nginx vs lighttpd (And Cherokee!) This thread was inspired by Lifetalk in the CB, sorry but I didn't set up Cherokee as I couldn't be bothered reading up as to how. But I'll include it next time! If you want to run some tests on your own machine that'd be cool for comparison (especially with hardware and stuff). Server specs: CPU: Xeon X3430 @ 2.40GHz RAM: 8GB HDD: 2x 1000GB in SW RAID 1. BW: 100Mbps (Not that it matters...). Server is CentOS 64bit, completely fresh format and the latest available kernel. Nothing has Rating: 5

[DLow]

i love this review of the three web servers eLight, i my self use nGinx with apache it works very well i would recommend nGinx to anyone i my self have been meaning to try out lighttpd never have used it.

[eLight]

Well, lighttpd and nginx can be used together. A bit more to set it up, but the results would be there if you're struggling for performance!

[WaReZ]

can you add litespeed standard edition in the comparison aswell please?

and if possible also add memory used by each webserver

[eLight]

I've used litespeed once, two years ago maybe, both nginx and lighttpd out performed it. That may have changed but in my eyes these are better and free.

[WaReZ]

^^ according to litespeed staff LSWS is far better than nginx, so i just wanted to see that in action

http://www.litespeedtech.com/support/forum/showthread.php?t=2429

[Lifetalk]

^^ according to litespeed staff LSWS is far better than nginx, so i just wanted to see that in action

http://www.litespeedtech.com/support/forum/showthread.php?t=2429

Lol Litespeed Staff. They're staff; they'd say anything and everything without much basis to it if it helped them sell their product.

[Motion]

@elight
how much time you took for this benchmark testing? lol
[i believe you have so much time to do so]

[eLight]

About an hour or so. I already had some of the stuff installed, was just the screwing around, installing the accelerators and editing that was annoying

[pioneer_fawad]

thanx for test, searching for this. +1