Lighttpd

curl -I upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/b/bc/Wiki.png

HTTP/1.0 200 OK

Content-Type: image/png

ETag: "6328830078231585647"

Accept-Ranges: bytes

Last-Modified: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:31:37 GMT

Content-Length: 15379

Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 16:23:47 GMT

Server: lighttpd/1.4.13

X-Cache: MISS from sq11.wikimedia.org

X-Cache-Lookup: HIT from sq11.wikimedia.org:3128

X-Cache: HIT from knsq19.knams.wikimedia.org

X-Cache-Lookup: HIT from knsq19.knams.wikimedia.org:3128

Age: 32

X-Cache: HIT from knsq13.knams.wikimedia.org

X-Cache-Lookup: HIT from knsq13.knams.wikimedia.org:80

Via: 1.0 sq11.wikimedia.org:3128 (squid/2.6.STABLE21), 1.0 knsq19.knams.wikimedia.org:3128 (squid/2.6.STABLE21), 1.0 knsq13.knams.wikimedia.org:80 (squid/2.6.STABLE21)

Connection: close

Sure some informations might be old, and they might have changed their setup, but atm. they are still using it for mostly static contents like pictures and stuff.

It would seem that solely the server hosting images uses lighttpd. Supporting this is this http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikimedia_Servers.svg graphic.

Isn't it a little deceptive to state lighttpd on its front page as it is now? It misleads readers into believing Wikipedia runs lighttpd as its primary HTTPd.

-- Flo Sidler

As a regular user, I think the phrase "lighttpd powers several popular Web 2.0 sites like YouTube, wikipedia and meebo" is neither deceptive or inaccurate. To me, the term "powers" means it's used by, I never read it as something exclusive, as "Wikipedia runs on lighttpd". It's nearly impossible (not to mention confusing) to list each of those site's software stack, eg: "lighttpd powers several popular Web 2.0 sites like YouTube (along X, Y and Z), wikipedia (along Apache, Squid, Big-IP) and meebo (along X, Y and Z)"

In fact, on the same page, you can read a more detailed description of YouTube's and Wikipedia's usage of lighty, describing the "typical scenario" as "using lighttpd as off-load server to push out static content and leave to complex work to another server".

I still think it's misleading as it boasts lighttpd's prestige more than it should (not that it does not deserve it, but not from a vaguely true statement such as this).

But be that as it may, ..