News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Nginx vs Apache performance. Parent comment

Re:Nginx vs Apache performance by nickb on Monday March 16, 2009 @09:07PM (#519132)
There's no need for Lighttpd when you use Nginx. It can do everything that Lighttpd can do and more (and has no memory leaks).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nginx vs Apache performance by snprbob86 on Monday March 16, 2009 @10:15PM (#519246)
Interesting...

Our app is Python 2.5 and Django (well, kinda Django). I haven't gotten to deep into the Lighttpd thing yet, but it looked promising. Maybe I should take another look at Nginx?

Also, do you recommend FastCGI or WSGI? I've had a hard time figuring out precisely what the differences in implications are.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nginx vs Apache performance by njharman on Monday March 16, 2009 @10:24PM (#519260)
FastCGI for no particular reason other than it's worked for me straight off using a couple different Python versions and Django.

I also use nginx as proxy in front of apache and dev instances of django manage.py runserver (nginx serves up static, passes dynamic on to back ends)

Nginx is so powerful, flexible, and has never given me a single problem. I loves it.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nginx vs Apache performance by snprbob86 on Friday March 20, 2009 @04:47AM (#524684)
Wow. This was brain freaking dead simple to configure compared to Apache and even simpler than Lighttpd. Thank you a million times over! It works great!
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nginx vs Apache performance by bandris on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @02:43PM (#520348)
Definitely nginx with FastCGI for Django. At my previous company it drove all the 30+ sites.
[ Parent | on HN ]