Should we add Lighttpd as an install/upgrade option?

[DirectAdmin Support]

Hello,

We've received a few requests about lighttpd. I did some searching and it appears to be a powerful program which can replace apache for those who wish it. It's supposedly more efficient than apache; large sites like youtube and wikipedia use it.
This is their site: http://www.lighttpd.net/

Now this poll is to decide if there is enough support to take the time to create an additional install option for it. We'll likely never completely abandon apache, as it's a workhorse, but lighthttpd does show potential in several areas.

The only catch is it's not as feature-rich as apache, so anyone who uses it may lose some functionality (until the features are implemented within it).

John

[DirectAdmin Support]

Note, this is a repost as the previous thread seems to have dissapeared.

Google cache showed some previous comments:Lighttpd is nice, but I actually like Nginx more.I guess it may be worth it, however you must also consider that this isn't going to be applicable for a lot of customers due to the lack of .htaccess & mod_rewrite (apache compat.) support.

I would rather attention be put towards other things, such as native Awstats support.LxAdmin is the sole quality control panel that had employed lighttpd since inception...I'm very impressed with it. Many people prefer it for VPS, etc. and ideally suited too.

Yes, I'd like to see optional support for (switchable anytime) lighty (and nginx?) in DA.i'm currently using NginX to serve static files and apache for php, so .htaccess, rewrite still works. but can't do it automatically, have to manually configurate NginX. The performance result of NginX is very impressive.If anyone likes to see Nginx instead of lighttpd - just write that in this threadI say no, why?

Since Apache 2.2 has arrived the performance difference between Apache and lighttpd has decreased a lot!

Apache 2.2 is even faster with serving dynamic content then lighttpd with fastcgi.

Source: http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=527963

Making the speed difference between lighttpd and Apache so small, i don't think we would benefit from it when DA starts putting time in lighttpd instead of developing their panel further.

There is so much to do, so much features to fix, so much things to straigthen out.

I say, please focus on what you have atm and keep the new features away until you have all your current options working like they should.I wouldn't base any real performance analysis on a single benchmark or any benchmarks for that matter - what is more important is the real world results. I can tell you that both lighty and nginx are superior to Apache (yes, even 2.2.x), but DirectAdmin should focus on other things first.I agree http://www.litespeedtech.com/ is the best of all with 100+ people downloading a 700MB file from server still server load never crosses 0.2

that is what rapidshare usesLiteSpeed is nice but costs a lot. Standard edition is crippled.
Now, I'm looking for a CP having native support for LS... ...etc... there were more, but if you have anymore comments to add/re-add, please do so ;)

John

[neorder]

what's Nginx?

[andyreed]

what's Nginx?Check this out: http://wiki.codemongers.com/Main

[darkus]

I would absolutly love to see lighttp as an option in directadmin! I think its a great idea and great effort by the team to meet the demand here on the forum.

But more importaantly i'd like to see more robust support for apache 2.2 since it seems like the apache team is seriously working at making apache faster to compete with these alternatives, and i'd put my money on apache.

What I mean by ore robust support is to have a more integrated and easier way to apply apache 2.2 to new installs or already running machines that would be control panel based, where a click of a check box would allow apache 2.2 (or alternatives) to become activated. I dont like how directadmin is straying from its original intention of being a webbased control panel into a system where i seem to be spending more time in unix shell then on the web control panel...

although plesk generally sucks because of stability issues, i do like the effort they have put into making admin changes to the server completly web/icons based so you dont need to go into the box that much to make things happen.

Dont get me wrong, DA is by far the best, i just wish they would stick to the core idea behind the system.

just my 0.02 cents

[albatroz]

Yeah,
I would certainly prefer NGNix instead of Lighthttpd

[Wido]

I say no again.

I can't stress it enough, there are SO many bugs and issues to fix, please focus your energy on that first.

Choose a line to walk and get to the end of it, before adding new features.

I sum:

* Exim wich binds on port 80 with no reason (http://www.directadmin.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12232)
* Apache being restarted the whole time, wich causes some serious stability issues. DirectAdmin uses restart instead of graceful, wich kills all the active connections
* vm-pop3d and imapd who crash a lot and are seriously outdated. Dovecot should be more worked out and come as default, no more choices, use dovecot. The Maildir format is also much, much better then the Mbox format.
* The scripts directory is a total mess, no naming conventions at all, just a bunch of scripts dumped in there and hey, find it our yourself!
* The templates directory is the same, no explenation at all, and no naming convention at all.
* The API also has no conventions at all, features are added random without being tested fully

DirectAdmin should put much more time in perfectioning their current system, then expanding the features.

Documenting all the scripts en template files is one of them. Making naming conventions for all these files, dividing them in subdirectories.

Also, buffer the number of Apache restarts. Like, only restart Apache once every 10 minutes and use graceful instead of restart, that workes much better.

There are so many details to fix and i would love to sum them all when encountering them and submit them to the DirectAdmin team, but i have the feeling they don't have a real roadmap.

There also is no bugtracking system at all, so we don't know what the open issues are for example.

And before i am put away as a old grumpy man who has to much time, no, i am not.

I have to manage 100+ DirectAdmin servers and they consume SO much time, i sometimes regret i have chosing DirectAdmin, but on the other hand, i never found a good alternative.

No please, focus on the current issues first and then put your time in new features!

[martijnS]

I agree, there are too many bugs that you have too fix or you simply can not fix.

Exim on port 80 you can make a work around for it, but i totally agree that exim is not a good mailprogram.

[jca]

A bugtracking system would be very nice....

[netswitch]

I also believe that it would be better to harden the actual features than to implement new ones.

[CiscoMike]

I'd love to see the mail system cleaned up as a whole (Exim/Dovecot/SpamAssassin/ClamAV) and made a bit more robust. While I don't need it, I think a bit more automation in the GUI would help those less than console-inclined as well.

I have nothing against lighttpd but Apache 2.2 addresses 90% of the "advantages" that lighttpd brings to the table.

I think more time could be spent on automation (of upgrades, patches, etc) and really hardening the system. DirectAdmin is heads and tails better than Plesk and CPanel (I've used/hosted both before) when it comes to server load, process spawning and basic security but if you all could really nail down the stability factor (personally I've never had DA or any DA spawned process crash unless it was my fault but I digress) and drive home an enhanced security platform, I think you could really grow your business.

[MMarko]

Nginx is much much better than Lighthttpd. I did some benchmarking on one Celeron, and Apache 2.x actually outperforms Lighthttpd, and Nginx outperforms them both, a lot.

[smtalk]

I sum:

* Exim wich binds on port 80 with no reason (http://www.directadmin.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12232)


It is a PHP bug: http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=38915. You need to use PHP as CGI to solve the problem.

[jlandes]

I believe there are other, more critical, things that DA should consider working on rather than investng the time into making another Web server work with DA.

I feel a mail user panel should be created (every other control panel out there has one already), a bug tracking/feature tracking system (I have reported issues before that still have not been fixed in DA), UI improvements for certain DA config options so that those that are not shell savvy can spend less time admining the box for things that DA should be handling from the control panel end. improvements in the DNS management capabilities of DA, better and more feature rich skins support and branding, and I could go on.

Don't get me wrong, DA is a great control panel, and I have tried them all, but I think there are some core issues that need to be handled before trying to get other 3rd party software working with the panel when we already have things like Apache that work fine. Is there even a roadmap to show the future direction of DA?

This is just my $.02 for what it's worth. Thanks.

[QuantumNet]

I have to agree, down the road someday you should worry about it, DA needs to focus on other things for now....

You have remote redundant DNS server support....
You have remot MySQL support...

What about remote exim support? There are many of us who have asked over and over for a more redundant email solution, it would be nice to have 2 email only DA servers which handled mail for all the DA installs. Just like we can do for DNS.

We need loadbalanced mail solutions.


With redundant Mail servers and redundant DNS servers and external MYSQL servers then...

Comes the need for Directadmin to support Loadbalancing with remote storage arrays such as iSCSI or SAN.


Your panel is by far the best in my opinion but there is a lack of availability concerns being addressed that are taken care of in other panels like Interworx and HSPhere


For those needing higher performance than Apache there is already a drop in replacement for directadmin called litespeed web server we upgraded our servers to it without any downtime or config rewrites or coding.

As far as the bugs being reported go, personally I have not found any bugs that anyone speaks of but I agree you should add a bug tracker to your website so people can communicate.

You also need a roadmap for directadmin so people can look forward to working with you on feature development and suggestions.

You have a great platform now give us the ability to provide better availability to our customers.


Thank you,

Quantum Net Solutions

[DirectGuy]

Lighttpd and Nginx can effectively double your server capacity, that means saving a lot of money in extra servers, it's not a toy but a very useful tool. And it's only a matter of time until all major control panels support webservers other than Apache, so Direct Admin can take the lead here by implementing it now. The other priority is clustering.

[jlasman]

I stand with those who say there's a lot of stuff to finish/improve/etc., before adding a new webserver.

Jeff

[darkus]

We should keep this thread on topic with web-server software, as that is what the directadmin people are asking us about, everyone wants every feature under the sun, but lets keep our discussion focues on web servers instead of exim, etc etc...

I wanted to just add to my previous opinion that full support of Apache 2.2 should be implemented as soon as possible just to keep DA up to date and also add some kind of control panel implemented switch to go with Nginx or lighttpd. lite is probably more widely known although from a performance point of view, all my research ponts to nginx being superior. I still believe Apache 2.2 takes the cake because it offers most of the performance benefit as well as having the large community support to help weed out bugs, etc... and so by virtue it comes with stability.

[Internet54]

Keep Apache and forget about the other 2 options for now.

Most of the current DA users will not see much of a benefit from the other 2 options. Besides, implementing anything other than something you know will be nothing but a complete headache. And what exactly is the benefit to it?

Is Youtube running DA? NO.

[SecondV]

I stand with those who say there's a lot of stuff to finish/improve/etc., before adding a new webserver.

Jeff
+1 I agree ;)

[hostpc.com]

I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with Wido. I've been using DA since 8/03 ... exclusively. We've built our business for the last 5 years using it, but there are a TON of open issues that need to be addressed before going forward with lighthttpd

custombuild system needs a LOT of work, especially on upgrades
directory ownership issues
backup/restore issues
dns chroot issues
and the list of stoooopid little stuff goes on.

I beg you, don't make anther change / feature until these issues, and more, are cleared up.

Setting up new servers with the setup script on TOP of the basic DA install, (currently installing 40 boxes here) should NOT be this time consuming to make them have default features - roundcube, apf, els, security, webdav, CLAMAV, BFD, DDOS, dovecot, common CPAN scripts, spamassassin, php-imap, true-type, GD, ImageMagick, etc etc.

After DA base installs, we spend nearly an hour tweaking it to it's necessary levels before deploying as an active server. Let's fix what we've got, make it the best panel on the market (again) and THEN move forward.

Just my 2c.

Joe


I say no again.

I can't stress it enough, there are SO many bugs and issues to fix, please focus your energy on that first.

Choose a line to walk and get to the end of it, before adding new features.

I sum:

* Exim wich binds on port 80 with no reason (http://www.directadmin.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12232)
* Apache being restarted the whole time, wich causes some serious stability issues. DirectAdmin uses restart instead of graceful, wich kills all the active connections
* vm-pop3d and imapd who crash a lot and are seriously outdated. Dovecot should be more worked out and come as default, no more choices, use dovecot. The Maildir format is also much, much better then the Mbox format.
* The scripts directory is a total mess, no naming conventions at all, just a bunch of scripts dumped in there and hey, find it our yourself!
* The templates directory is the same, no explenation at all, and no naming convention at all.
* The API also has no conventions at all, features are added random without being tested fully

DirectAdmin should put much more time in perfectioning their current system, then expanding the features.

Documenting all the scripts en template files is one of them. Making naming conventions for all these files, dividing them in subdirectories.

Also, buffer the number of Apache restarts. Like, only restart Apache once every 10 minutes and use graceful instead of restart, that workes much better.

There are so many details to fix and i would love to sum them all when encountering them and submit them to the DirectAdmin team, but i have the feeling they don't have a real roadmap.

There also is no bugtracking system at all, so we don't know what the open issues are for example.

And before i am put away as a old grumpy man who has to much time, no, i am not.

I have to manage 100+ DirectAdmin servers and they consume SO much time, i sometimes regret i have chosing DirectAdmin, but on the other hand, i never found a good alternative.

No please, focus on the current issues first and then put your time in new features!

[RadMan]

I haven't been using DA as long as others but I will not only second this motion but tripple it and quadrouple it !!!! ...

Improve on fundamentals which are missing in the script right now before you start adding duplicate and triplicate features which most people don't need or want in the first place...

Improve the ability for Admins to turn ALL existing features on and off using the browser but most importantly, if an existing feature is turned off there is ABSOLUTELY NO NEED to tell the customer that the feature is available and it's turned off... Creates unnecessary support emails and explanations as to why specific features have been turned off...

Personally I thing you guy's should get your heads out of "geek mode" and get it into simple stupid "consumer mode" so you can eliminate the need for individuals to hunt down "How Do I Do? and WHere Do I Find?" support forums where the requests for "How Do I Do? and WHere Do I Find?" are repeated more than tenfold.... (Poor 'ol Jeff might stop sounding like a broken record for once...;))

This script is missing basic browser based necessities like the ability to move one user from one reseller account to another or the ability move ALL re-seller accounts form one to another (apparently being worked on now) and most importantly built in end user billing/accounting software which should have been incorporated into the script ages ago, eliminating the need for 3rd and 4th party sofware that is dependant on other servers or other parties to support...

I don't have to manage 40 servers but I am buying another server in the early part of the new year and I highly doubt that I will be buying another DA license unless I see some improvements on the basics that are already being offered in this script in the very near future...

I think I would rather pay a few bucks more to get something that is feature rich but a lot more efficient and simple stupid to use...

Another two cents worth...

Ed

PS: Sorry for getting off topic here , just venting.. :(


I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with Wido. I've been using DA since 8/03 ... exclusively. We've built our business for the last 5 years using it, but there are a TON of open issues that need to be addressed before going forward with lighthttpd

custombuild system needs a LOT of work, especially on upgrades
directory ownership issues
backup/restore issues
dns chroot issues
and the list of stoooopid little stuff goes on.

I beg you, don't make anther change / feature until these issues, and more, are cleared up.

Setting up new servers with the setup script on TOP of the basic DA install, (currently installing 40 boxes here) should NOT be this time consuming to make them have default features - roundcube, apf, els, security, webdav, CLAMAV, BFD, DDOS, dovecot, common CPAN scripts, spamassassin, php-imap, true-type, GD, ImageMagick, etc etc.

After DA base installs, we spend nearly an hour tweaking it to it's necessary levels before deploying as an active server. Let's fix what we've got, make it the best panel on the market (again) and THEN move forward.

Just my 2c.

Joe

[devonblzx]

Comparing the performance of things...

On my dual quad core clovertown, I ran some testing between the Nginx, Lighttpd, and Apache 2.2 worker mpm.


Static HTML (<html><head><title>Hello</title></head><body>Hello</body></html>):

Apache 2.2: 6650 requests/second 100% CPU Load
Lighttpd: 5670 requests/second 66% CPU Load
NGINX: 9320 requests/second 80% CPU Load

PHPInfo (<?php phpinfo(); ?>) - Running FastCGI on All

Apache 2.2: 465 requests/second 100% CPU Load
Lighttpd: 1820requests/second 100% CPU Load
NGINX: 2030requests/second 100% CPU Load


To me, it looks like Lighttpd is the most "light weight" but NGINX isn't much heavier and produces better performance for both PHP and Static HTML.


I think Apache might have performed better under mod_php rather than FastCGI, but I wanted to run the same php binary for all of the systems during the tests.

I also agree with the others, I don't think it's completely necessary at the moment, it might be better to perfect the other things as when you switch to NGINX you lose Perl support and I noticed even running the wrapper still caused issues. With lighttpd, perl support is there but you also lose things like rewrite and htaccess, etc.

Hope this helps...

[voxxitdesigns]

I would have to say that I think that there are a lot of issues with DirectAdmin that could be addressed before addressing LigHTTPd, but I do think that it would be beneficial to your customers (e.g., me) who are actively seeking a solution to this.

If you add it, marvelous! If you don't, I hope you're working on improving other areas of DA. :)

[lkbryant]

I have been actually hunting for the best way to optimize web server and I just ran some tests today,

LiteSpeed totally destroys all other web servers (Apache/Litey/Nginx) mod_php/fastcgi, prefork or worker or not.

Only down side is that, its not free. It's like $800 per server.
They also have Free version but I don't know about that, i just tried their 15 day trial one.

LiteSpeed is really neat, they also have web-based gui to do all your php compiling etc....

[jackc]

if Litespeed cost the same as DA I would use it, but it's much more expensive. So I use NginX.

[mattb]

Agree with most... lighttpd would be something 'nice' to look at.. .but it shouldn't come at the expense of other things.

Also I think until all the functionality that many rely on with an apache webserver (.htaccess / mod_rewrite springs to mind) needs to be resolved cleanly first.

I would like to see in 'custombuild' that we have the option to enable/disable apache mods. (via options.conf) That is likely to drop the memory requirements of Apache considerably, and get much of the benefits that these alternate web-server solutions provides.

Just my $0.05 worth.

[jlasman]

Personally I think it's going to be along time before prospects are going to sign up with a provider who advertises We use Litespeed vs a provider who advertises We use the latest version of the well-known Apache webserver.

But of course that's only my opinion :D.

Jeff

[localhost]

I think nginx is much better and faster, but a lot of customers are asking about lighttpd

[servertweak]

I will love to see nginx as an option 3 (upgrade) in the next ./build

[t.bloo]

there are a TON of open issues that need to be addressed before going forward

yes indeed, +1

[netswitch]

I think there is a problem here.

First the poeple voting are getting the same weight regardless of the amount of DA licences they use. I believe any small host with one server will more likely ask for a new fuzzy stuff like this because he would have only one or two server to update and is not facing the issues of DA that need improvement before new "fasthttpd" on a big scale.

Second, everyone using DA will agree that there are other most important features to add before loosing time with a new httpd daemon

Third, so many votes for a new server and so few replyies from the user that voted on this topic... it sounds odd to me.

So what is the position of the DA Staff ?
We haven't heard from them here since a long time...

[King Justice]

I think that Lighthttpd should be an optional feature in DirectAdmin in conjunction with Nginx as well.

[servertweak]

I disagree, I'm large lic holder but I too like to see httpd off from DA and see something better.



I think there is a problem here.

First the poeple voting are getting the same weight regardless of the amount of DA licences they use. I believe any small host with one server will more likely ask for a new fuzzy stuff like this because he would have only one or two server to update and is not facing the issues of DA that need improvement before new "fasthttpd" on a big scale.

Second, everyone using DA will agree that there are other most important features to add before loosing time with a new httpd daemon

Third, so many votes for a new server and so few replyies from the user that voted on this topic... it sounds odd to me.

So what is the position of the DA Staff ?
We haven't heard from them here since a long time...

[netswitch]

I believe we all agree on the fact that another httpd client would be "nice" but don't you also think that there are other important features to fix/add before a new http daemon ?

[servertweak]

I believe we all agree on the fact that another httpd client would be "nice" but don't you also think that there are other important features to fix/add before a new http daemon ?


my .02 cents I love DA, I won't buy anything else. I think they should increase the rate a little bit more and hire 1 more staff member working on the bugs and the other staff members working on new items. If money is the problem

It have been a slow process getting new items on board. Like i said, i love DA and I'm willing to wait, I'm hoping that 2008 things can speed up a bit tho

1. anything but apache
2. dual server setups (auto by DA)
3. client transfer from one DA to another

[agnivo007]

Well, DA needs a massive overhaul and try to make it more modern (with features of course)...ajaxy, web2.0 ish interfaces... you know very well, it's essential to stay in competition and have to evolve with the times.

[servertweak]

Well, DA needs a massive overhaul and try to make it more modern (with features of course)...ajaxy, web2.0 ish interfaces... you know very well, it's essential to stay in competition and have to evolve with the times.

All that is just eye candy, DA can still have a basic look

[JDiel]

I agree with all that say DA needs to be bug fixed first, before adding new applications.

Also a bug tracking system on this site would be a good feature! (Step 1 if you'd ask me!)

For those with a lot of servers, I'd like to request one more feature than already discussed. The update of DA itself, it must be a pain to have 100 DA servers and update them all. Wouldn't it be possible to have a "central update server", or a "master update server", that all "slave servers" could sync up with the master(s)?

[t.bloo]

ajaxy, web2.0 ish interfaces...

please NO ajax and other gimmicks in my control panel!

It should work with all the browsers out there and especially outdated ones. It's the system that controls the bare server, not a fancy social network gadget...

[jlasman]

I think there is a problem here.

First the poeple voting are getting the same weight regardless of the amount of DA licences they use.
It's only a problem if JBMC (the company responsible for DirectAdmin) makes changes based on poll numbers.

Do you really think they do that?

Jeff

[DirectAdmin Support]

We take all info into account when making decisions. Poll numbers are only 1 factor of many, we usually put more weight on the discussion than the numbers. Also, we wouldn't be putting much of our own time into any development for this, we'd probably get a 3rd party to take on the project, so it wouldn't really affect our own coding. ;)

John

[servertweak]

sounds good, keep us advised

[localhost]

I think lighttpd is not so important, it's better to have a compiled version of Linux, like Gentoo.

I even can help with it :)

[mattb]

I'd rather see other options worked on then Lighttpd.

There are numerous other things that could be of assistance more than another web-server.
Also Lighttpd is missing core functionality that Apache delivers to date... I don't see it as a viable solution until they are supported.

[jlasman]

II agree with user localhost.

Let's all switch to a system that requires a 30 to 50 hour compile every time we want to do something :D.

Jeff

[UbiquityClint]

A better UI would do wonders for the panel on larger scale.

[pucky]

Like compiling Freebsd for 6.2 for instance as its been sitting at 6.0 for a very long time.

[mattb]

Seriously, if people are after Nginx or lighttpd it would be easier of these individuals compiled it up themselves.

A HOWTO could be produced by DA staff to show them how to setup the logs so that the traffic is counted (similar to what they do for Apache).

Besides that I would prefer more effort placed on bugfixing, and feature enhancements to the core product. Lets not dilute the product on offer. ;)

Sure, for static content I think Nginx/lighttpd might be great (or even images, etc) but a howto can be provided for those interested in it.

I still see a need that Apache httpd will still required on many of the hosts that are running these alternate web-servers.

[Chrysalis]

Hate to say it but a strong no from me as there is issues that need fixing first, all mostly minor but they soon add up.

1 - Unable to use latest zend optimiser because the DA panel is built against php4 and as such the plugins dissapeares so have to use old zend optimiser.
2 - Building binaries against old OS versions, FreeBSD 4.8 replace with the upcoming 7.0, change FreeBSD 5.1 (5.1 was beta) to 5.5, 6.0 to 6.3. Build static binaries as problems with the dynamic ones. Example have to use the 5.1 binary of exim since the 6 version is dynamic and the dependencyies are different.
3 - Integrate the FreeBSD ports system, this will take time to generate scripts that work with it but on the upside directadmin wont have to keep releasing binaries.
4 - Fix the problems with custombuild such as it overwriting the entire httpd.conf on every apache compile. Incorrect php flags been used.
5 - Finish all incomplete features and make the gui more complete.
6 - DNS multi server server system, the other week I had noticed changes on the primary DA server not copied over to the slave, I believe this was because at the time the changes were made the slave was down. Something needs doing where it checks for updates at intervals.

[smtalk]

4 - Fix the problems with custombuild such as it overwriting the entire httpd.conf on every apache compile. Incorrect php flags been used.


It doesn't do that :)

[DirectAdmin Support]

1 - Unable to use latest zend optimiser because the DA panel is built against php4 and as such the plugins dissapeares so have to use old zend optimiser.No, you can use any version of php you want. Zend 3.3.0 sometimes does not work with php which is why you get no plugin output in DA. DA itself doesn't care what version of php is being used, hence we still include 3.2.8 (to prevent php from breaking)
2 - Building binaries against old OS versions, FreeBSD 4.8 replace with the upcoming 7.0, change FreeBSD 5.1 (5.1 was beta) to 5.5, 6.0 to 6.3. Build static binaries as problems with the dynamic ones. Example have to use the 5.1 binary of exim since the 6 version is dynamic and the dependencyies are different.We always use static binaries when we can. The only reason we don't for newer systems is because the compilers won't let us due to linking with certain libraries and functions. Older systems allow us to create static binaries.

John

[Chrysalis]

Ok so the 3.3 zend issue only is when php4 is used with apache? I think the machine in question had php 5 but I will try it out later see if I can upgrade zend and keep the plugins link.

[@how@]

I agree with all that say DA needs to be bug fixed first, before adding new applications.

Also a bug tracking system on this site would be a good feature! (Step 1 if you'd ask me!)

For those with a lot of servers, I'd like to request one more feature than already discussed. The update of DA itself, it must be a pain to have 100 DA servers and update them all. Wouldn't it be possible to have a "central update server", or a "master update server", that all "slave servers" could sync up with the master(s)?

you can add da update in corn day, weak or month

Wael

[rndinit0]

http://www.litespeedtech.com/products/webserver/overview/

Why not partner with them, have them ensure that it works fine with DA.
That would leave the DA team free to continue working on perfecting DA.

[mattb]

http://www.litespeedtech.com/products/webserver/overview/

Why not partner with them, have them ensure that it works fine with DA.
That would leave the DA team free to continue working on perfecting DA.

You better compare the editions of litespeed first (http://www.litespeedtech.com/litespeed-web-server-editions.html). The standard (free) vs enterprise (purchased (http://www.litespeedtech.com/buy-litespeed-web-server.html)) would add significant cost to DA.

[Overseer]

+1 for NGinx server. good choice for static files and .flv-files

[rndinit0]

You better compare the editions of litespeed first (http://www.litespeedtech.com/litespeed-web-server-editions.html). The standard (free) vs enterprise (purchased (http://www.litespeedtech.com/buy-litespeed-web-server.html)) would add significant cost to DA.
Im willing to pay that price.
Enterprise version Owned License $1299 4 cores.

Ill pay that price.

[chielsen]

Better add support for Subversion. It's always a hell to get it working with apache.

[Faltzer]

Honestly? If you're going to have lighttpd implemented, then at least have some sort of team work specifically on lighttpd so the main development will not cease. I can see many things in DA that need fixing, such as the naming convention for the scripts folder, as a member had already mentioned.

[Auraka]

No, you can use any version of php you want. Zend 3.3.0 sometimes does not work with php which is why you get no plugin output in DA. DA itself doesn't care what version of php is being used, hence we still include 3.2.8 (to prevent php from breaking)
We always use static binaries when we can. The only reason we don't for newer systems is because the compilers won't let us due to linking with certain libraries and functions. Older systems allow us to create static binaries.

John

John,

Instead of working on things like litespeed how about you guys work on clustered DA, now that would be awesome!