A cute name which stuck. Apache is "A PAtCHy server". It was based on some existing code and a series of "patch files".
The developer version of Debian GNU/Linux (“wheezy”) contains 17,141 packages of software, or 419,776,604 lines of code. With that figure, James Bromberger estimates that Debian would cost about $19.1 billion to produce. Bromberger also looks at the cost of individual projects like PHP, Apache and MySQL. Even at more than $19 billion, the figure is likely far short of what it would actually cost to produce.
The second most popular web server on the planet no longer comes from Microsoft. It comes from NGINX. And now, the tiny Russian outfit wants to actually make some money from its widely popular open source server software.
Introducing Apache Mahout – calable, commercial-friendly machine learning for building intelligent applications
Summary: Once the exclusive domain of academics and corporations with large research budgets, intelligent applications that learn from data and user input are becoming more common. The need for machine-learning techniques like clustering, collaborative filtering, and categorization has never been greater, be it for finding commonalities among large groups of people or automatically tagging large volumes of Web content. The Apache Mahout project aims to make building intelligent applications easier and faster. Mahout co-founder Grant Ingersoll introduces the basic concepts of machine learning and then demonstrates how to use Mahout to cluster documents, make recommendations, and organize content.
G-WAN seems again to perform a lot better than the other servers. Nginx always performs slightly better than Lighttpd, while Apache Traffic server is very similar to Lighttpd in term of performance. Finally, Varnish Cache serves only half of the requests compared to all others. Surprisingly , there are quite few differences between the results with optimized settings and those with the default settings.
Regarding the resources used by each server, Nginx is the winner in term of memory usage, as the amount of memory does not increases with the number of concurrent clients. G-WAN requires 2 times less CPU than the other servers.
Again, keep in mind that this benchmark compares only the servers locally (no networking is involved), and therefore the results might be misleading.
(Full Story: Serving small static files: which server to use ?)