Lighttpd versus Litespeed with Mongrel as a backend for Rails applications

Done like always: client -> server over a gigabit connection, and both lighttpd and litespeed are proxying back to the same set of mongrel processes (in other words everything is exactly matched including file size and transfer rates).

This set is on FreeBSD with a ruby compile that has no pthreads.

Litespeed Enterprise 2.1.14 -> Mongrel 0.3.12.4

Concurrency Level: 100
Requests per second: 1008.04 [#/sec] (mean)

Lighttpd 1.4.10 -> Mongrel 0.3.12.4

Concurrency Level: 100
Requests per second: 1010.36 [#/sec] (mean)

This is forcing everything to be served through mongrel, and was perfectly comparable with fastcgi’s performance. Having the file be cached to the filesystem by rails and served as a static file by litespeed or via lighttpd’s mod_cml actually boosts it another 3-4 fold.

So …?

  1. Mongrel is good stuff.
  2. Lighttpd or litespeed for the simple purposes of being a load-balancing proxy capable of virtual hosting? Doesn’t matter, they’re comparable.

BTW, if you want to click around to the public sites, http://mongrel.textdrive.com and http://mongrel-lite.textdrive.com

·:· Posted 16 April 2006, 23:16 by Jason Hoffman to Rails  |  

  1. You seem to have way too much time on your hands ;)

    — Jacques Marneweck    20 April 2006, 19:28    #