Making nginx "feel" faster?

Phillip B Oldham phill at
Mon Mar 10 13:55:07 MSK 2008

The response felt worse, to my memory. We dropped it very quickly 
because of the 500 errors due to the php issue: they were making our 
site totally unusable.

I thought there might've been some tweaks we could do to reponse packet 
size or something to help speed things up. If not its not a problem - 
we'll probably just move server to one based in the UK so we don't have 
the trans-atlantic jump.

Igor Sysoev wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 07:52:29AM +0000, Phillip B Oldham wrote:
>> Yes - lighttpd had lots of problems with 500 errors due to php processes 
>> ending unexpectedly. Haven't tried apache, but I don't much fancy 
>> playing with fastcgi with apache or re-compiling php.
> But what about response feeling ?
> Did lighttpd send static faster 
>> Igor Sysoev wrote:
>>> On Sat, Mar 08, 2008 at 02:51:56PM +0000, Phillip B Oldham wrote:
>>>> Hi guys
>>>> I'm working on a mediatemple server (US) from the UK and it looks like 
>>>> there's a limit with the bandwidth from the server. Sites on that box 
>>>> are slow, whether they're dynamic or not. nginx has 8 worker threads 
>>>> (with 8 php-fastcgi threads waiting), keepalive is set to 3, static 
>>>> files are being told to cache, and gzip is enabled.
>>> You do not need worker per each php-fastcgi process.
>>> Single worker is enough for this.
>>>> Are there any other tweaks I can do to nginx to make the responses feel 
>>>> faster? Maybe reduce the chunk size or something?
>>> I have no idea. Have do you tried other servers: lighttpd, Apache in this
>>> environment ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: phill.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 261 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the nginx mailing list