nitrogen over inets vs. yaws vs. mochiweb

[vim]

do you have any insights regarding using nitrogen over inets vs. yaws
vs. mochiweb?

why would you pick one over the other?
does it make a difference if i interact only through nitrogen?
does nitrogen behavior is different?

thanks, vim.

[Tom McNulty]

Inets

-- I've never considered this to be any more than a toy, I can't back
that up but I'm not aware of any reasons no choose it over the rest.
Please prove me wrong.

Yaws

-- Great static file support, Apache style configuration. Yaws
performs well in tests with many simultaneous users.

Mochi

-- Very small http 1.1 server, so it's very easy to mod and learn.
This is my preferred server for development. If you look at the source
code for static file handling, you'll have all the reason you need not
to use this in a production setup (see next step).

NGINX (or lighttpd, perhaps apache with event MPM)

-- Use a high performance server to handle all static files, then
proxy requests to your nitrogen app. Now since Nitrogen is not CGI,
FCGI etc, you have to talk HTTP, so I generally proxy to a nitrogen
app running a mochiweb server. (once I used a custom-made server,
lighter that mochiweb, but it was specific).


So I use mochiweb -- development
NGINX/mochiweb -- production.

I need to run more tests in YAWS to see if it can replace NGINX for
me, the all-Erlang solution would be beneficial in that the framework
may be called directly, not tunneled over HTTP proxy requests.


- Tom

[vim]

thanks tom for your verbose answer. i'm still 'processing' all the
techniques you've mentioned, as i have less knowledge on those areas.
i guess i'll be back later with some more questions :)

[Linh]

Not sure about its static and dynamic file serving speed, but Inets
also has Apache style configuration.