# Boa vs Apache? or maybe khttpd

## vargen

Anyone have experience from more than one of those? Can't really deside wich one I should go with.. Pro's / Con's ??

----------

## To

I use Apache for 8 years or so. And I gotta say that it has become evene better.

I don't have any pr's for Boa vs Apache. 

Apache can use an huge amont of module, almost every modules you found on the web are supported. 

Apache can manage extremly loaded sites.

Apache it's easy to configure.

etc etc etc.

Tó

----------

## vargen

Yes, true.. but those who I've spoken to that have experience of the others says that they are way faster than Apache and leaves Apache way behind in speedtests.. now, I found only one: http://lists.alt.org/pipermail/khttpd-users/2001-January/000122.html

and yes, Apache is slower.. but do I even sence the difference in real life..

----------

## kashani

Well the correct answer is... it depends on what you want to do with your http server and how much time you want to devote to it. 

Apache is going to be the most widely understood, best docs, largest community, most modules, and support just about anything you want to do. Of course all these function come at a price, lower performance.

Boa IS fast, but lacking in "what can I do with it department?" As far as I can tell from the docs you can say goodbye to mod_perl, mod_php, chroot, and any type of ACL. thttpd looks to be a much better alternative with comperable speed, more features, and some cool throttling stuff.

khttpd is static content only. And with the state of developement or lack there of I'd go with tux instead.

In production we use Apache for the frontend and thttpd for static content servering. We are pushing around 70-90Mb/s out of the web farms at peak. Generally Apache should have no problem scaling to 20-30Mb/s on decent hardware assuming you've done the proper tuning, increased file descriptors, etc for your usage.

Being fast is not the same thing as being useful.

kashani

----------

## i3839

Boa has a chroot option (maybe only the newer one, I don't know). 

khttpd will be dropped in the next kernel, and the next kernel will be great, so don't stick to khttpd ;).

I would use thttpd for simple webservers which don't need any special modules like kashani said. There is a server comparison on the thttpd site too, I guess it's somewhat outdated, but still usefull: http://www.acme.com/software/thttpd/

----------

## punx

I really don't think there is a serious alternative to apache.org's 

httpd-server.

It' s so flexible you can teach it nearly everything you want.

 :Exclamation: 

regards punx

----------

## Ox-

I've messed around with other servers too because of "performance".  I'm tired of that.  I like being able to just plug shit in and having it work so now I only use Apache.

You can find patches for Apache that help performance, e.g.: State Threads[1] and mod_log_spread[2]

[1] http://aap.sourceforge.net/

[2] http://www.lethargy.org/mod_log_spread/

----------

## To

There's only some performance problems with extremely loaded websites. I've runned sites with over 50 SQL querys 1 one page using PHP. Still Apache gives me more trust than any other httpd server.

Tó

----------

## uzik

I'm using Boa. It was easy to setup and is faster than Apache.

It doesn't have all the fancier features of Apache though (access control

being the primary one that comes to mind). If you don't need those

things you might give it a whirl.

----------

## alinv

I', using both: apache2 for dynamic pages on port 80 and boa for static pages, images, css, flash etc. on 8080.

The load on my server decreased dramatically after I installed boa (it's hosting 5 pretty visited websites)

----------

