Thanks! I use S3 to serve images that are loaded after the initial page load (incidentally, using YUI's ImageLoader: http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/imageloader/). I use nginx to serve static files, e.g. HTML, as well as images that get loaded on page load, e.g. logo. Why not S3 for the latter? Too slow. Amazon's (relatively) new content network may be faster, though I haven't tried it yet.
Wrt nginx being more stable, both. I've crashed Apache as well as pseudo-crashed it (process still running, but not serving right). nginx hasn't crashed yet. It's also more consistent (and faster) under load. However, in Apache's defense, it does a lot more, e.g. mod_perl vs nginx proxy to FastCGI.
Cool - well I'm on Apache now, on a very undersized server - so I guess I'll have to give nginx a shot.
Not sure how you'd extract more speed from your current setup. The natural next step would be doing work in parallel - this something you do/have considered?
If you do try the Amazon CDN, let us know how you go :)
I use multiple worker processes in nginx (2 x # of cores), which work in parallel. Then FCGI::Engine is configured to run multiple processes as well. Finally, I use the external JS and image files (in part) to speed up the client-side via parallel processing of requests. (Note that IE7 and below limit concurrent connections per host by default often to 2: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc304129(VS.85).aspx).
It mentions that static content is served from nginx, but then mentions S3 later on as well. Why not just Amazon for all the static content?
Mentions nginx being more stable than Apache - you mean no-crash stable, or more consistent under load?