Tobias Schlitt Apache vs. Lighttpd: "echo" performance Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:34:32 +0100 CC by-nc-sa en text/html For a little private project, which makes extensive use of caching, I recently checked, where I could get gather some more performance from. Kore told me, that Lighttpd ships all of the pages of one of his projects in about 0.001 seconds, while mine still took 0.004 seconds on Apache. After some tracing I found the actual point of problem: The echo of the final output, which took most of the time. I tried to run the same project on Lighttpd and guess what: There were the 0.001 seconds. Tobias Schlitt Apache vs. Lighttpd: "echo" performance Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:34:32 +0100 CC by-nc-sa en text/plain For a little private project, which makes extensive use of caching, I recently checked, where I could get gather some more performance from. Kore told me, that Lighttpd ships all of the pages of one of his projects in about 0.001 seconds, while mine still took 0.004 seconds on Apache. After some tracing I found the actual point of problem: The echo of the final output, which took most of the time. I tried to run the same project on Lighttpd and guess what: There were the 0.001 seconds. Tobias Schlitt Apache vs. Lighttpd: "echo" performance Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:34:32 +0100 CC by-nc-sa en application/rss+xml For a little private project, which makes extensive use of caching, I recently checked, where I could get gather some more performance from. Kore told me, that Lighttpd ships all of the pages of one of his projects in about 0.001 seconds, while mine still took 0.004 seconds on Apache. After some tracing I found the actual point of problem: The echo of the final output, which took most of the time. I tried to run the same project on Lighttpd and guess what: There were the 0.001 seconds.