Should we add Lighttpd as an install/upgrade option? [Archive]

DirectAdmin Support

11-23-2007, 02:26 AM

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

11-23-2007, 02:32 AM

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 thread
I 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 uses
LiteSpeed 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

11-24-2007, 10:58 AM

what's Nginx?

andyreed

11-24-2007, 11:06 AM

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

darkus

11-25-2007, 01:56 PM

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

11-26-2007, 04:35 AM

Yeah,
I would certainly prefer NGNix instead of Lighthttpd

Wido

11-26-2007, 08:50 AM

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

11-26-2007, 08:57 AM

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

11-26-2007, 11:24 AM

A bugtracking system would be very nice....

netswitch

11-27-2007, 07:45 AM

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

CiscoMike

11-27-2007, 05:51 PM

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

11-28-2007, 08:31 AM

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

11-29-2007, 01:38 PM

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

11-29-2007, 10:33 PM

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

11-29-2007, 11:09 PM

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

11-30-2007, 09:28 AM

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.

nobaloney

12-02-2007, 04:51 PM

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

Jeff

darkus

12-03-2007, 07:32 PM

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

12-08-2007, 09:01 PM

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

12-09-2007, 06:33 PM

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

12-09-2007, 07:32 PM

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

12-10-2007, 09:39 AM

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

01-01-2008, 02:00 PM

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

01-02-2008, 06:08 PM

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

01-03-2008, 03:05 PM

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

01-04-2008, 02:30 AM

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

mattb

01-04-2008, 07:36 AM

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.

nobaloney

01-05-2008, 03:46 PM

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

01-18-2008, 08:16 AM

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

servertweak

01-19-2008, 10:42 PM

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

t.bloo

01-21-2008, 03:47 AM

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

yes indeed, +1

netswitch

01-21-2008, 04:02 AM

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...

EGS

01-21-2008, 11:20 AM

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

servertweak

01-21-2008, 01:11 PM

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

01-21-2008, 05:13 PM

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

01-21-2008, 05:24 PM

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

01-21-2008, 08:23 PM

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

01-21-2008, 08:34 PM

JDiel

01-22-2008, 02:41 PM

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

01-23-2008, 04:42 AM

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...

nobaloney

01-23-2008, 02:07 PM

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

01-23-2008, 02:53 PM

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

02-03-2008, 01:20 PM

sounds good, keep us advised

localhost

02-07-2008, 02:44 AM

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

02-07-2008, 05:08 AM

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.

nobaloney

02-08-2008, 08:49 PM

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

02-23-2008, 08:13 AM

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

pucky

02-23-2008, 11:03 PM

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

mattb

02-24-2008, 06:41 AM

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

02-25-2008, 11:57 PM

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

02-26-2008, 12:57 AM

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

02-26-2008, 04:43 PM

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

02-29-2008, 11:01 PM

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@

03-03-2008, 12:05 PM

rndinit0

03-03-2008, 10:10 PM

mattb

03-04-2008, 06:01 AM

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

03-10-2008, 02:05 PM

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

rndinit0

03-10-2008, 03:04 PM

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

03-10-2008, 03:22 PM

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

Faltzer

03-10-2008, 05:47 PM

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

03-11-2008, 02:32 PM

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!

Stepashka

12-11-2008, 04:27 PM

I want to have Nginx!

Direcadmin+Nginx will be the best...

dmtinc

12-11-2008, 05:40 PM

DirectAdmin+NginX
Thats The Best Option :D

scsi

12-12-2008, 07:22 AM

I dont understand why people want to switch from apache. What are your reasons?

tillo

12-12-2008, 07:51 AM

My reasons for lighttpd are: smaller memory footprint, better performance, embedded FastCGI support.

scsi

12-12-2008, 09:58 AM

Lighthttpd looks alot more promising then nginx.

IT_Architect

03-02-2009, 04:37 PM

Apache 2.2 is very fast with dynamic content when coupled with eAccelerator and has no FastCGI issues. We serve 10K to 15K dynamic pages a minute. Nginx can be manually added to an existing DA install to handle static content. My vote is there are more pressing issues such as up-to-date FreeBSD support and support for ports and other stuff.

Lighttpd solved an Apache problem that hasn't existed since Apache 2 came out. This is why their market share had declined to less than 1%. See Netcraft's March 2009 Web Server Survey. Apache 2.x + eAccelerator is a LOT faster than Lighttpd + eAccelerator. NGINX has more than triple the marketshare of Lighttpd. NGINX compliments Apache by taking care of the static content requests thereby preventing simple static content requests from using more the more expensive dynamic-capable processes of Apache. There are simple instructions for implementing NGINX with DirectAdmin on this forum.

x-f

03-03-2009, 10:19 PM

Hi,

i like nginx more.
Site like wordpress.com had problems availability with over 7000 request/s with nginx no problem anymore.

wdeboer

03-04-2009, 05:57 AM

I would love if you would add support for Phusion Passenger or mod_passenger which allows easy deployment of WSGI and Rails/Ruby webapplications via Apache. Of course, you can then use nginx for the traffic loading.

Dravu

03-04-2009, 08:16 PM

Hi,

i like nginx more.
Site like wordpress.com had problems availability with over 7000 request/s with nginx no problem anymore.
Actually, doesn't Wordpress.com use Litespeed?:
http://www.litespeedtech.com/solutions/casestudies/

johny_gjx

04-08-2009, 04:37 AM

Has DA made any decision about this? Is the lighttpd gonna appear soon?

DirectAdmin Support

04-09-2009, 02:14 AM

Hello,

We have no immediate plans to support lighthttpd or nginx. In the future that could change, but not at the moment.

John

tsj5j

04-09-2009, 03:25 AM

IT_Architect

04-09-2009, 07:46 AM

Implementing lighttpd will place DirectAdmin in a very favourable position. LxAdmin has already experienced explosive popularity due to it's light footprint. DA can achieve that and more, as LxLabs have terribly support and an even worse interface.Am I missing something? LxAdmin uses Apache. The trend is not toward low performance CPUs and small amounts of ram in any case. Customers are pressing vendors for features and performance in nearly every aspect.

Apache 2.2 MPM Event is here but classified experimental.(Which is better than some others released products.) With little effort on DA's part, this product brings the strengths of prefork and worker, without the disadvantages of a reverse proxy like nginx. It currently lacks support for key modules such as mod_ssl or any input filters for that matter, but at least the direction is to make them work. There is no theoretical reason why it shouldn't outperform nginx in a reverse proxy mode, and Apache CLI wildly outperforms Lighttpd and nginx today if they try to do dynamic content with php + fastcgi. The only place php + fastcgi makes sense today in a dynamic environment is where the content being served is heavily lopsided toward static content where the time is spent sending the content, not creating dynamic pages. Movies, large graphics, etc. Apache 2.2 MPM Event gives/will give the best of both worlds. fastcgi is not fast. It's simply a lot faster than regular cgi because it stays running. It's been a work-around to make non-thread-safe libraries safe and security. It's not a desired long-term solution.

johny_gjx

04-09-2009, 02:39 PM

Am I missing something? LxAdmin uses Apache.

Yes but it also offers an option to switch to lighttpd which is however done through the packaging system. It also converts the setting between the apache and lighthttpd

felosi

04-13-2009, 12:54 AM

I think it would be great to offer lighttpd as alternative if this is viable for directadmin. I would defintely use it. But I guess there will be some issues arise like trnasferring backups from other servers running apache and things like that.

But yeah, Id love to see it or at least an option to use it for images

BTW on ngnix, It hasnt been updated since 2005 has it?

IT_Architect

04-13-2009, 10:25 AM

But yeah, Id love to see it or at least an option to use it for images...BTW on ngnix, It hasnt been updated since 2005 has it?

Amen! I agree with that. I've been thinking about this a lot lately. The problem is that's a proxy and it kills some of the important advantages of Apache such as mod_rewrite, and a lot of the other modules in Apache are far better than what is available with the little servers. There are work-aorunds, but the cures end up being worse than the disease. The easy way out that I see is for the images to be serviced by another IP, but that doesn't fit well with the shared hosting paradigm. Apache MPM event looks like the answer, but it's experimental and has some key modules are missing yet.

nginx AFAIK is pretty healthy judging by the market share it is gaining at the expense of Lighttpd. I don't know how often nginx gets updated, but their latest is the 4/9/2009.

lawlawl

04-26-2009, 09:21 AM

I definately think supporting Lighttpd is the best thing you could do.

DA is extremely apache-biased unless you add that (hence why I don't use DA on my lighttpd servers).

IT_Architect

05-05-2009, 09:00 AM

Apache MPM event looks like the answer, but it's experimental and has some key modules are missing yet.I did some networking with people working on the project. I learned that the statement in their docs about no support for mod_ssl and most other input filters date back to the 2005 release of Apache 2.2. That is no longer the case today. Apparently mod_ssl and mod_rewrite and everything else has been working for quite awhile. I queried for the issues and noted that almost every one has a patch available. Released software has at least that many bugs as I see here:

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&product=Apache+httpd-2&component=Event+MPM&long_desc_type=substring&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=NEEDINFO&emailassigned_to1=1&emailtype1=substring&email1=&emailassigned_to2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailcc2=1&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=

It may be exciting to think that we could use Nginx or Lighttpd with DirectAdmin, but from a shared hosting perspective, it would be an untenable situation to limit people to the small cross section of features non-Apache servers provide. We like to think we don't use a lot of Apache's capabilities, but you can't even do a decent captcha on a contact form without them, and who knows what else we would reach for and not find. Neither us nor web hosting customers are accustomed to thinking in terms of working around web server limitations when deploying web apps. So then how many DirectAdmin customers could actually use it?

I haven't tried MPM Event yet. I've read the comments of a few people who use it. According to them, they were never able to make MPM Worker fast nor reliable while MPM Event just works and is fast. The MPM Event option provides all of the capabilities of Apache plus the event-based front end of an Nginx or Lighttpd. The next Apache, 2.4, adds to that small-object caching and a memcache distributed cache.

The need for specialty servers has been shrinking steadily since Apache 2.x came out, and especially 2.2 back in 2005. Running PHP under Fastcgi is not a performance advantage, it is a performance limitation required to make up for one of the many limitations of these servers. Netcraft statistics confirm they have ceded the dynamic ground to Apache, and now, with an Apache event-driven front end, the ground specialty servers will occupy will be reduced yet again. Their only remaining bastion will be clustered environments where separate physical servers handle static content. Very few of those servers will be running DirectAdmin. I'm all for adding another server if it makes sense for the future. The way it appears to me, what is being proposed only makes sense for the past, and maybe not even the present.

Adding MPM Event to custombuild would be a cake-walk, plus DA and everyone else is already very familiar with Apache and it's modules. For a non-threaded Prefork-based environment with user based security advantages of FastCGI, there are extensions such as MPM ITK, MPM PerUser, etc.

ryan14

11-29-2009, 05:11 PM

ok it' been 2 years now since this post was started. Is directadmin ready for lighttpd yet? if not, what is the ETA?

DirectAdmin Support

11-29-2009, 05:50 PM

ryan14

11-29-2009, 09:21 PM

Hello,

At this time, we have no plans of adding "official" support for lighttpd. I know I've seen people running it already with DA, so it is possible using our customizable templates. Searching for some how-to guides would be a good starting point.

John

Is there a reason for having no 'official' support?, because there are hundreds of thousands of active websites using Lighttpd according to this survey:

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2009/11/10/november_2009_web_server_survey.html

Also, there is currently no other control panel that has 'official' Lighttpd support so DA could be the first.

And you say you have seen people running Lighttpd with DA, But have you actually tried it yourself so you can tell us what DA features work and what don't and could you release an 'official' instruction guide on how to integrate Lighttpd with DA without needing Apache?

scsi

11-30-2009, 09:46 AM

Its not their job to give you a guide to do so. There is nothing wrong with apache.

ACiD

11-30-2009, 03:41 PM

I think adding it will help a lot of people and noobs to configure lighttpd. Also have a control panel in directadmin for lighttpd re writes.

nobaloney

12-01-2009, 12:17 PM

Lighttpd is supported by the DirectAdmin community, and you can find all the help you need on these forums. It's not officially supported by DirectAdmin, and that's the decision announced by John in his post on Sunday.

Jeff

@how@

02-09-2010, 11:33 AM

Still we wait to Lighttpd supported by the DirectAdmin officially :)

Wael

deja_wu

02-09-2010, 02:10 PM

Apache and lighttpd can work together, apache for dinamic pages and lighttpd for static pages. We will be able configure lighttpd on one different port for work with ProxyPass parameter on each (or selected)Virtual host and also for some directories ( for example /images , /css etc.. ) so that we can provide Apache can make use lighttpd perfectly. DirectAdmin can offer that how :

When we are working with Apache2.2.x

we can install lighttpd via custombuild on differen port ( exp :9999 )

than on the panel we can assign lighttpd to one virtual host for use together with apache, in this moment user can see one selection area on DirectAdmin panel account and user can select some directories for work with lighttpd. Only we need in this moment DirectAdmin need add some lines to user's virtualhost httpd.conf

( example :
ProxyRequests Off
ProxyPreserveHost On
ProxyPass /images http://0.0.0.0:9999/images
ProxyPassReverse / http://0.0.0.0:9999/
)

so we can benefit from lighttpd speed for static pages or directories (video, music, pictures or file pages and .swf directories etc..) with apache.

With this way i am believing we have more faster web servers.

nobaloney

02-15-2010, 11:36 AM

With this way i am believing we have more faster web servers.
Some test results would be interesting.

I'd love to see if a speed increase would be noticeable when running lighttpd for static sites/pages, through a proxy.

Jeff

localhost

02-15-2010, 02:48 PM

I think is better to add nginx support rather than Lighttpd.

deja_wu

02-18-2010, 12:55 PM

Some test results would be interesting.

I'd love to see if a speed increase would be noticeable when running lighttpd for static sites/pages, through a proxy.

Jeff

You can install by manually and try it. You will see high difference on an optimized server.

nobaloney

02-18-2010, 01:08 PM

How would you implement it in a shared hosting environment?

Jeff

Orbixx

02-18-2010, 06:28 PM

I think given the proven worth of the daemon through both benchmarks, polls and factual popularity statistics, it would be silly not to implement lighttpd.

Those who want nginx clearly know exactly what they're doing, and if they don't, they shouldn't be asking for it. nginx doesn't strike me as the sort of httpd people should be having for general shared environments. I would have nginx on a server on its own for a single website which has extreme requirements, even then lighttpd would still be a candidate.

umbrucul

02-18-2010, 10:23 PM

deja_wu

02-19-2010, 07:46 AM

This is the installation steps for 1 virtual host, i used for my one host before :

mkdir lightp
cd /root/lightp
wget http://www.lighttpd.net/download/lighttpd-1.4.18.tar.gz
tar xvzf lighttpd-1.4.18.tar.gz

cd /root/lightp/lighttpd-1.4.18
./configure
make
make install

mkdir /etc/lighttpd/
mkdir /var/log/lighttpd/
cp doc/lighttpd.conf /etc/lighttpd/

vi /etc/lighttpd/lighttpd.conf

you find it that line : server.document-root

and change it same as httpd.conf document root for example :

server.document-root = "/srv/www/htdocs/"

find that lines and comment out :

$HTTP["url"] =~ "\.pdf$" {
server.range-requests = "disable"
}

to

#$HTTP["url"] =~ "\.pdf$" {
# server.range-requests = "disable"
#}

find that line and change port than comment in :

#server.port = 81
server.port = 9999

than save and quit..

add lighttpd to services (CentOS, Redhat or Fedora) :

cp doc/rc.lighttpd.redhat /etc/init.d/lighttpd
cp doc/sysconfig.lighttpd /etc/sysconfig/lighttpd
chkconfig lighttpd on

go to :

vi /etc/init.d/lighttpd

and find that line :

lighttpd="/usr/sbin/lighttpd"

than change it :

lighttpd="/usr/local/sbin/lighttpd"

save and quit...

start lighttpd service :

service lighttpd start

and check it lighttpd service running or no ?

ps -ef|grep -v grep|grep lighttpd

if you see,

root 15741 1 0 Sep12 ? 16:25:30 /usr/local/sbin/lighttpd -f /etc/lighttpd/lighttpd.conf

go to httpd.conf :

vi /etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf

and add this lines between tags VirtualHost :

<VirtualHost xxxxx>

ProxyRequests Off
ProxyPreserveHost On
ProxyPass /images http://0.0.0.0:9999/images
ProxyPassReverse / http://0.0.0.0:9999/

</VirtualHost xxxxx>

save and quit from httpd.conf and restart service :

service httpd restart

You can check it now, lighttpd is running or no :

tail -f /var/log/lighttpd/access.log

if you find lines starting with 127.0.0.1 that you installed success, apache using lighttpd for static pages now.

this is only for one VirtualHost, if you want to use lighttpd more than 1 VirtualHost you need :

1. All VirtualHosts must start from one directory.
example: /var/doc/virtualhost1, /var/doc/virtualhost2 the partner directory is /var/doc
2. You must change documentroot line in the lighttpd config file same as partner directory.
3. Apache configuration settings in the new partner will be considered directory should be changed.

I used i liked performance when i use together apache and lighttpd but if you want you can set ngix proxy/load balancer for the apache or DirectAdmin can add these features, we can select or change any time apache+lighttpd or ngix+apache. It can be perfect feature for DirectAdmin.

scooby2

02-20-2010, 11:55 AM

I think is better to add nginx support rather than Lighttpd.
I would second this. Nginx is much more popular than Lighttpd and Lighttpd growth seems to have fallen off in the last year while Nginx is still going strong.

btnet

02-25-2010, 12:03 AM

Some test results would be interesting.

I'd love to see if a speed increase would be noticeable when running lighttpd for static sites/pages, through a proxy.

Jeff

This might be useful: http://www.btn.ro/wsb/

I personaly made those benchmarks.

And yes. lighttpd is better and should be included, will also be a business boot on sales because I spent days looking for a cpanel software with lighttpd.

nginx is fast but I had some issues with page ranks with it don't know why.

btnet

02-25-2010, 12:09 AM

algore

03-01-2010, 01:39 AM

I would recommend litespeed to be an option as its really lighting fast when it comes to server load .. i mean when the loads are high apache seems to die

Riverdale

03-19-2010, 09:26 PM

Lighttpd is known for memory leaks, and has clearly been surpassed in popularity by Nginx, as you can see in the March 2010 Web Server Survey by Netcraft (http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2010/03/17/march_2010_web_server_survey.html):

Apache 54,55%
Microsoft 24,47%
Google 7.06%
Nginx 6.13%
Lighttpd 0.80%

My vote is for Nginx, it's the obvious choice since Lighttpd is dying.

interfasys

03-22-2010, 07:42 PM

+1 for Nginx as an alternative

IPB_Refugee

03-27-2010, 10:55 AM

I'm not sure if it makes sense to post in this topic as it goes back to 2007, but

+1 for nginx

Have a nice weekend
Wolfgang

shally87

04-20-2010, 06:18 AM

Seems that support for lighttpd is dead. DA does not interested to implement it while other customer are willing to have it. Any news from DA regarding this matter?

regards
Leo

@how@

11-09-2010, 06:44 AM

Seems that support for lighttpd is dead. DA does not interested to implement it while other customer are willing to have it.

ya :D:D:D:D
http://www.directadmin.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21851&highlight=Litespeed

hadi_gby

02-11-2011, 04:04 PM

woow this not occur yet :D

interfasys

02-11-2011, 04:23 PM

Yep, nginx should be added as an option, it's really good for static files.

localhost

02-14-2011, 12:58 AM

Also people would like probably to have some control over it, and maybe see connections and stuff like this. Something like apache-status should be added to DirectAdmin because not everybody knows how to type commands in command promt.

Maniak

02-15-2011, 01:55 PM

This is my take on web servers. After almost three years of large heavy web-hosting missions for real high-availability for financial institutions and so-called web 2.0 companies, I do not see any further a big interest for Lighttpd, but I have rather seen and do more and more see interest for nginx.

While corporate mostly tend to stick to Apache/IIS, many are now using Nginx to speed-up static content but as well dynamic content. I have actually done some benchmarking for a large PHP website and using Nginx with PHP-FPM vs. Apache with mod_php or suPHP with heavy tuning turned Nginx to clear 30-35% gain on dynamic pages.

Not to mention – in a very large setup, I even had Nginx talking directly with Memcached for serving dynamic cached content and this was just a killer feature. The proxy features of Nginx, while not as rich as Varnish for instance are just awesome (those who want to do that, be sure to know what you do and master the structure of your indexes). What does and will suck, is that Nginx does not have anything like .htaccess files - but once you get used to write Nginx, you won't go back to writing htaccess.

My honest opinion – DA should give us the option to have Nginx + PHP-FPM as an option to the current old but savvy Apache stack, which should also stay.