Talk:Comparison of lightweight web servers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This redirect is supported by WikiProject Software.

server side scripting[edit]

the comparison should details if the server support any scripting like php/perl/phyton/etc...

Link Discussion[edit]

The linking you did on tiny web servers is somewhat counterproductive. Most of the links just redirect back to tiny web servers. The page is essentially a device to consolidate enough of these stubs that they can be kept off of AFD (most of the programs were one line stubs frequently nominated for deletion). I know it wasn't intentional but you have created a great deal of circular redirection. :) --Darkfred Talk to me 19:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC) [Copied from User_talk:Fleminra by Fleminra]

Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt, but actually all of the changes in question were intentional, and I was actually aware of what articles existed, didn't exist, and were redirects here or elsewhere. By my count, I added 10 new links:
New links to existing articles
Boa (web server), thttpd
New links to non-existant articles
KLone, Lite Netquestion HTTP Web Server, nweb, Simple httpd, TinyWeb
New links to disambiguation pages
New links to redirects to this article
SimpleW, Scrinchy
I presume you don't dispute the "productivity" of the first seven of these.
[You didn't mention linking to disambiguation pages, but Wikipedia:Disambiguation, which is "guideline" (not "policy"), suggests that in the absence of a real Abyss (web server) article, Abyss (web server) should redirect to Abyss, and this article should link to that redirect. Since that redirect doesn't presently exist, I linked to the disambiguation page, which is not forbidden by policy or guideline.]
This leaves SimpleW and Scrinchy (and so I respectfully dispute your "most" and "great deal", but that's not important). Ideally these indirect self-links would be rendered by MediaWiki the same as direct self-links (i.e. as bold, and without the HTML link). In this case, the point is half moot, because the names of those servers are already bold as of my revision.
Regards, Fleminra 21:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I will attempt to reply point by point.
  • First, Abyss_Web_Server does exist, but you linked to Abyss. It should probably be renamed to meet the guidelines, but a usefull link is the most important property, if it does get renamed a bot will eventually come along and clean up the unnecessary redirect. (or the renamer can)
  • Second why would you add red links? Do you intend to write the articles? why not just fill in the info on the the tiny web page article. We don't need dozens of 2 sentence articles written about single person open source projects any more than we need red links to nonexistant articles. Its probably better for people to find stub-ish information on the tiny page than to spread the information around. I do understand the viewpoint that a red link is kind of a an encouragment to write the article, but this is a very low interest area of the encyclopedia. Most of this stuff was written by creators of these programs themselves. (although I am not one of them). If you do intend to write decent articles, then by all means ignore everything i wrote above and just do it.
  • For the links to redirects. If media wiki is supposed to be un-linking these then it is broke. Check that version yourself. It just makes working links that return to this page.
  • And finally. I don't want to get into an edit war with you, this page does need some serious help. I really don't care about this page that much, personally, I don't consider this stuff to be very encyclopedic. This was a compromis. If you intend to rework this by moving the pages out into their own stubs they will probably just be back in AFD as NN software. These types of pages just seem to get in afd fast when they are small.
regards --Darkfred Talk to me 22:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I missed one point. I was wrong about the number of back links. There were only 2 as you stated. I didn't check every one initially. --Darkfred Talk to me 22:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Red links are required for Special:Wantedpages to work, and can be useful for judging the notability of something, regardless of whether an article for it exists (e.g. Special:Whatlinkshere/Jetty (web server)). My intentions with respect to articles on KLone, Lite Netquestion HTTP Web Server, nweb, Simple httpd, and TinyWeb are not relevant — no policy states that a contributor who creates a link is obligated to create the article pointed to by the link. In any case, I think this and embedded HTTP server should be merged with comparison of web servers. —Fleminra 00:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with you on every point. I just don't think the red links would ever get updated this far into the wilds of wikipedia :). On merging; you've got a great point, and while we are at it we should pull in some of the extraneous stubs as well. All the minor articles which just serve as 4 line descriptions plus a link to various list pages and other 4 line stubs. --Darkfred Talk to me 01:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Add nginx http server please. Superscript text


Let's talk about the possible merge. When you say 'merge', this normally means get rid of the whole article, normally because the concepts overlap too much... But I would've thought 'Tiny web servers' is a reasonable topic to have a separate article on. Maybe only the list section of this page should be merged with the comparison of web servers article. But actually if you try to move these list entries over there, you'll probably get into some arguments about whether these 'tiny web servers' are notable as compared to some mainstream normal web servers, so I would question whether anything should be merged actually. I'm don't feel strongly on the issue, but I do think it would be good to remove the big fat merge label one way or another -- Nojer2 12:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the articles should remain seperate. BadCRC 21:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I would agree; people interested in tiny web servers have no use for Apache or IIS, why compare them? 06:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This article deserves to stay. (unmerged) I guess most of the wiki editors have absolutely no clue how much effort went into making these unique web servers stable, and release ready. In this day in age, people are shunned at for posting references to free programs online, even in an informative context. Comparing these servers with Apache or any other professional web server is shying away from the spirit of why these pieces of work where put here. Spending months on a tiny web server thats absolutely free to the community entitles you to atleast list it somewhere for it to be known. This is a unique, informative page and deserves to stay.

I found this single page very useful and would probably not have found the page in Google if it was disguised as another more general topic. Please keep it unmerged. I'll remove the merging hint, please add it again if there is still need for discussion. --Raphman 09:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Raphman and the others arguing for this article to stay, without content or context loss. I'm not that active a Wikipedia contributor that I think it worthwhile creating an account here (we're talking maybe 3-4 edits a year), so I'll sign off with an external link... but I just wanted to say that pages like this are enormously useful in finding stuff on Wikipedia. -- Peter da Silva ( 21 May 2007

Simple Server from AnalogX[edit]

There's another low-end server called Simple Server from AnalogX 9 that may fit in this group as well, although I don't know where it would belong in the list. 15:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

About the cleanup and sprawling list tag[edit]

I really think this article needs to be cleanup a lot. Right now only the first part is really important, after it's only some commercials for different Web Server. Moreover it's not only commercial but it's completely disorganized (Windows Only, Include windows Source code..., some section are presents twice,...).

To get ride of these two problems, we should first ensure the notability of the web Servers, then start putting all the notable Web Servers in a table. And finally we might want to add this list to Comparison_of_web_servers and keep this article only for explaining what a tiny web server is. Dockurt2k 14:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If the software isn't Notable, don't create a link for it. As I understand it, "notability" is a requirement for creating a page about something... but requiring that every textual reference in a page also be considered "notable" enough to potentially be worthy of creating an article about seems unreasonable. :) -- Peter da Silva, 21 May 2007

Convert the list to a table (as per Comparison of web servers)?[edit]

I mean, that list is a real tangled mess. 14:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the person before me. For example :Purplenova PC Web Server 3.0 is just a program which make your file accessible via their website. It is NOT a http webserver in the normal way.

Major rewrite[edit]

I did a complete rewrite of this page and converted all the information into a table form, however as a result of this a lot of the information in the original article was lost. Please if you want this information to be included add a new column and update the appropriate rows. The list should probably be alphabetized as well, and should be checked to make sure that all the facts that were in the original are still correct in the table (the original was a mess and keeping it all straight was a pain) -- Gudeldar 02:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why the article is tagged as not citing references or sources. As a list of tiny web servers, the best reference for each of them is the pointer to their own web page, right? Why the tag? -- Gonzo 03:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving page[edit]

I'm moved this article to Comparison of lightweight web servers, so that the title is clearer about what this article is actually about. -- Gudeldar 15:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup of Redlinks[edit]

As with some other articles that I've been working with, a common rule that has been implimented is that there should not be redlinks in the lists as the redlinked items/products are not notable enough to be mentioned and as such should be discussed in the talk page for inclusion into the article.


--Pmedema (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, get rid of redlinks. Miami33139 (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Why? As noted in the 2006 "Link Discussion" section above, red links are necessary for Special:WantedPages to work. A high number of red links are an indicator of notability that's being overlooked. If we keep cleaning off red links, how are we to know this? And if someone does create one of those pages, it risks being an orphan because nobody's linking to it. ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
"Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia, but this is not required if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. The one exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles: an example of this is List of minor characters in Dilbert. Don't use a list as a "creation guide" containing a large number of redlinked unwritten articles; instead consider listing them in the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Requested articles or in the appropriate Wikiproject."
So the answer is that redlinks should exist if we expect them to become notable in the future but not as mere showing of existence. This list is a redlink farm about software we know nothing about, which is a bad thing for readers. I would be okay with keeping the redlinks if they have one RS showing notability (because a stand-alone article requires multiple RS, I think one is a reasonable compromise for list appearance). Miami33139 (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, okay, I understand the rationale better now. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I did the cleanup and removed the associated tag: difflink. -- Theoprakt (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

standard for inclusion[edit]

What's the standard for inclusion here rather than comparison of web server software? ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

split long table into Overview, OS Porting and features[edit]

I think we have to divide the long table in overview in three or more tables, as in the article Comparison of web servers. Now I split the OS Porting information to another table. We have to test that this information is according the first table and find sources.

I start the migration. Like Comparison of web server, I put an OS porting table. I need someone could verify the information in the first table is the same that the information in the second and __then__ delete the OS porting information of the first table. At the other hand, I still put references in the article, but I don't know how far we need the information of old web server that don't have a wikipedia article. --Xan2 (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Size (in KB)?.---> what is[edit]

What means "size" in the article? The size of harddisk the program occupies? The size of the memory (RAM) that the server use (with what conditions)? Anyone could clarify it? Thanks. Xan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xan2 (talkcontribs) 19:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. The note [1] clarify that. Following that, we have that [2] really it is the "executable size", that is "For the compiled program this is size of the main executable file, stripped. For the Java servers it's the total size of the .class files or .zip files. For Roxen it's the size of the Pike interpreter". I will specify in the article. Xan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xan2 (talkcontribs) 19:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This whole column should be removed. Executable size is incomparable across platform, and tarball sizes are even more silly, since they contain varying amount of documentation, source, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Why would binary size matter?[edit]

Seriously, do we need that executable size section? Recompile any of these and it can be a different size. Furthermore, I hardly can see how such information would be useful, especially as it doesn't take into account the size of dependent libraries... It also says nothing about performance. Furthermore, it doesn't apply to a single open sourced server, because using a different version of GCC would change it..

That column shouldn't exist, as it isn't a constant. Since the vast majority of programs on this list are open source, it makes even less sense. (talk) 05:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I'm agree with you. It depends strongly on the options of compilation of the program, the version of the language compiler (C or others), the architecture, etc. I would to change that for the size of the package (tar.gz in linux or .zip in windows), but really for the size of the uncompressed package (you could compress with gzip or bzip and with different compression level). The size of uncompressed package provides information about the "complexity" of the program. I think it could be useful because we have no real performance level mesure. Just in apache versus "X server", there is no standard method for doing it. So I think the best we do is mesure the size of the program.--Xan2 (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
How can I request that change: the size of the executable file for size of the uncompressed source code? Is there any tag for marking that request?--Xan2 (talk) 13:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I started to change that. The procedure for editing such field is simple:
  • download packageserver.tar.gz or
  • uncompress: gzip -d packageserver.tar.gz or bzip2 -d packageserver.tar.gz
  • ll -k for displaying the size of the packageserver.tar (signature is missing)

Unfortainly there is no "cite" for this field.--Xan2 (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The binary size field, although inaccurate, used to be very helpful in estimating what "lightweight" meant for each program. Now there is a size of Tar field that has even more problems: is this a tar of a gzip or a plain tar? what about Windows, which has no native tar support and hence rarely uses tar at all? does the tar contain executable only, source only, or both? In any case, now there is no meaningful way to compare the functionality of each server. Is it possible to have a list of letters for each common piece of functionality implemented by the server? For example, Mongoose might be "abcd", where a=port or port list configurable, b=supports HTTPS and/or SSL, c=supports basic authorization through a passwords file, d=has an administrative page or interface, etc. David Spector (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion criterium?[edit]


Is there any criterium for inclusion of a web server in this category? For example, Tornado Web Server is a lightweight web server? When X becomes lightweight. One size perhaps is the size of the file of the package but the other I think could be something related to memory consumption. Any ideas? With possibility of objective treatment. More better with possible sources.--Xan2 (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

ISS Express NOT lightweight[edit]

Read the first and second paragraph, describing what lightweight means in this context. Now see requirements here

I believe that Windows 7 and .Net 4.0 as requirements do not meet this definition. We should either change the definition, or remove it from the list. Please note it's the only one that caught my eye, there may be others that do no apply. HuGo_87 (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Should Lighty(lighttpd) be here?[edit]

Lighty has another aim -- solve 10k problem, and my experience is it uses 20MB of RAM while beeing idle. So I do not think it fits the definition.

Updated the Abyss version[edit]

I just updated the version, date and tarball filesize for Aprelium's Abyss web server. -- (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


It appears two rotating IPs are edit warring over redirecting this article. Since this is contested, this page would be a good place to start discussing the redirect. Kuru (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Gatling/fnord httpd[edit]

Felix von Leitner gatling claims to be only 125K big and to have (fast)Cgi support. [3] Even smaller and only 18K is fnord [4], it even has cgi support. This a way more lightweight than the ISS listed here. -- (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Apache Traffic Server[edit]

Please consider adding the Apache Traffic_Server. BillMcGonigle (talk) 08:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Monkey HTTP Daemon[edit]

I just found this embedded linux HTTP daemon called Monkey HTTP Daemon (website, this could be added in the future to the list maybe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wafelijzer (talkcontribs) 09:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge and redirect[edit]

I propose we merge this article, which has a POV title (specifically, inclusion of the word lightweight), to comparison of web server software. This article is a subset of the article to which I propose it be merged, and the content in this article duplicates information in the target article. Main discussion for this proposal is at Talk:Comparison of web server software#Merge similar article. Mindmatrix 18:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Webfs webserver[edit]

A leightweight and non-blocking I/O select() based webserver which is almost zeroconf which can be found over here

Inclusion of LiteSpeed Web Server and OpenLiteSpeed[edit]


I'd like to add LiteSpeed Web Server and OpenLiteSpeed to the page. Both have been shown to work with between 8-32MB of RAM. I'm assuming that's at least as lightweight as many of the other servers listed. Does anyone have any problems with this addition? (I'm asking first before editing because I'm an employee of LiteSpeed.)


Lsmichael (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)