<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.1.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Lighttpd runs circles around Apache</title>
	<link>http://blog.tqhosting.com/2007/lighttpd-runs-circles-around-apache/</link>
	<description>The ins and outs of hosting</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:39:40 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Amr Hamdy</title>
		<link>http://blog.tqhosting.com/2007/lighttpd-runs-circles-around-apache/#comment-2</link>
		<author>Amr Hamdy</author>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 May 2007 00:46:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.tqhosting.com/2007/lighttpd-runs-circles-around-apache/#comment-2</guid>
					<description>You are right ... After suffering for many weeks to optimize apache for best performance on a VPS with a memory limit of 512 MB running heavy forum I couldn't make any great improvement ... So moved to lighttpd ... yes it could be much faster with so much lower memory usage ... 
- I've faced really one big problem that the I/O load could get very high sometimes due to the php-fastcgi ... I've then decreased the number of running php processes and used xcache with much memory caching allowed ... then I could get great results .. the memory usage doesn't exceed 250MB and the CPU load average is 0.50 ... 
Those are great results ...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are right &#8230; After suffering for many weeks to optimize apache for best performance on a VPS with a memory limit of 512 MB running heavy forum I couldn&#8217;t make any great improvement &#8230; So moved to lighttpd &#8230; yes it could be much faster with so much lower memory usage &#8230;<br />
- I&#8217;ve faced really one big problem that the I/O load could get very high sometimes due to the php-fastcgi &#8230; I&#8217;ve then decreased the number of running php processes and used xcache with much memory caching allowed &#8230; then I could get great results .. the memory usage doesn&#8217;t exceed 250MB and the CPU load average is 0.50 &#8230;<br />
Those are great results &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
