[squiggleblaz]

I don't know of any other well-known web server with the same featureset. For instance, it has no configuration file, it's run from xinetd statelessly/single-threaded, it runs itself in a chroot and it's short enough to be readable without specific effort.

It also isn't brand new: it's been around since 2004. So that probably narrows the range of possible competitors even more.

If you can find a webserver that meets all of those constraints, please let us know.

[rkeene2]

filed [0] is written to be readable, and stateless, and runs from a chroot, and has no configuration file. It doesn't run from xinetd and it's multi-threaded, though.

I wrote it because no other web server could serve files fast enough on my system (not lighttpd, not nginx, not Apache httpd, not thttpd) to keep movies from buffering.

[0] https://filed.rkeene.org/

[e12e]

> I wrote it because no other web server could serve files fast enough on my system (not lighttpd, not nginx, not Apache httpd, not thttpd) to keep movies from buffering.

Could you expand on that? What type of files, how many clients? I seem to recall plain apache2 from spinning rust streaming fine to vlc over lan - but last time I did that was before HD was much of a thing... Now I seem to stream 4k hdr over ZeroTierOne over the Internet to my Nvidia Shield via just DLNA/UpNP (still to vlc) just fine. But I'm considering moving to caddy and/or http/webdav - as a reasonable web server with support for range request seem to handle skipping in the stream much better.

[rkeene2]

You might want to try filed !

This was for serving MPEG4-TS files with, IIRC, H.264 video and MPEG-III audio streams -- nothing fancy -- from a server running a container living on a disk attached via USB/1.1.

While USB/1.1 has enough bandwidth to stream the video, the other HTTP servers were too slow with Range requests, because they would do things like wait for logs to complete and open the file to serve (which is synchronous and requires walking the slow disk tree).

[e12e]

> a server running a container living on a disk attached via USB/1.1.

Ah, ok. That makes sense. USB 1.1 can certainly challenge cache layers and software assumptions.

I do wonder how far apache2 might have been pushed, dropping logs and adjusting proxy/cache settings.

[rkeene2]

I do not know, though I do know that just disabling logging wasn't sufficient.