"Apache is more popular and has more features nginx is smaller and faster and has less features"

"For example nginx is much faster than apache"

"I am not an expert in deployment but in my experience nginx is much faster and more friendly to django compared to apache"

"Important note i am not comparing the 2 web servers that is not the point of this site but generally they have comparable performance so if https in nginx is 10 times slower than apache i feel that something is wrong in my nginx configuration i want to fix it"

"Having deployed django behind both apache and nginx in windows i have to say that i found nginx to be infinitely easier;however since nginx is more of a static file server with excellent proxying capability i ran a separate wsgi server for the django app"

"Serving static files with nginx is much more efficient than with apache"

"You can create custom controller to serve that files and use send_file mentod in send_file mentod with disposition inline also you may be interested to x_sendfile_header setting to serwe that files with apache nginx which is faster"

"For me apache is easier to use but i prefer nginx as it is much faster"

"Nginx is faster for static files but if you have a cdn there is no need to worry about static content;apache is a great server"

"At least in the past when i evaluated tomcat is much slower at ssl than apache nginx isn t as fast with static content requires redeploys of the war file if you change static content and lacks the configuration options of the more commonly used http servers"

"Nginx is still faster and i might choose it but apache isn t asleep"

"Nginx s static file performance is better than apache;apache mpm-worker is much faster than mod-prefork if mod_php isn t needed"

"Nginx would be easier to configure also it will be better than apache when it comes to serving static content like images and css files and so on"

"Nginx s configuration files are really simple and nginx s much lighter-weight than apache"

"Paradoxally it does not mean that apache is faster than nginx it just means that on 1 2 3 ."

"When i was googling info on nginx it appears to be faster than apache and works well in serving static pages"

"Nginx is typically faster than apache but with a low request server it hardly matters"

"Very fast static assets nginx is faster than apache at serving static assets css js images ... and uses very little memory to do so"

"I know nginx has lower memory footprint and little faster than apache in serving static files"

"Nginx will definitely work faster than apache"

"As an added benefit nginx can also serve static files much faster than apache and nginx also uses much less ram and can handle much more connections"

"Nginx works great by itself and will likely be much faster than apache"

"I have recently read that nginx is faster than apache"

"You can serve it from for example nginx varnish which are usually faster than apache"

"For example nginx is considered faster than apache and a nodejs application is considered faster than a php application"

"For static file serving i found nginx performance lot faster than apache"

"Nginx is faster than apache handles slow clients better and is generally easier to use"

"There seems to be a consensus that nginx serves static content faster than apache"

"I read that nginx is faster than apache and i want to try it with some of the projects and leave the others with apache"

"Not only is nginx supposedly faster than apache at delivering static content but this also offloads your rails application for every image stylesheet javascript or whatever other static content"

"I will add that i ve often heard that nginx is faster than apache for serving static files to the point that it s sometimes worth using nginx for static files and reverse proxying to apache for dynamic content"

"And finally from my experience nginx is faster than apache"

"Nginx â without any optimizations done â is much faster than apache"

"Nginx is faster than apache and the configuration is easier"

"I ve read that nginx is faster for static pages but there are questions about its performance with php compared to apache s performance with php"

"I would really like not to run both apache and nginx i did switch everything to apache yet found it loaded my proxies slower than nginx"

"But then apache s functionality is much bigger than just serving rack based apps;so apache s functionality makes sense to replace apache s functionality with something more lightweight for example nginx especially because you deploy apache s functionality once for every host you have"

"A server which reserves a thread or an entire process per connection such as apache with the usual mpm_prefork or mpm_worker keepalives are usually disabled entirely or kept quite short a few seconds;for an event-based server such as nginx which uses much less memory per connection the keepalive timeout can be left at a much higher value typically a minute or so"

"Is nginx + php-fpm is suppose to do server operations much faster than apache + mod-php due to efficient usage of memory and other resources"

"And finally if you are beginning with docker etc i recommend to use mod-php with apache which is easier to setup than php-fpm with nginx considering php-fpm with apache makes no sense"

"If you have two servers you would be better with nginx on site a proxying all requests to the internal server b with apache db and gearman on the internal server"

"Setting up https in apache isn t too hard and then just use modproxy to send requests internally to your play application;any one of the reverse proxy systems can likely do this nginx is popular too and generally has easier configuration than apache but i ve never used it with https"

"Any one of the reverse proxy systems can likely do this nginx is popular too and generally has easier configuration than apache but i ve never used this nginx with https"

"Yes - it s stable and it has much much better performance than apache if configured properly of course;no nginx is not compatible with apache - configuration is completely different"

"Now back to the question my guess based on reading tests published here would be that the proper multi-thread apache architecture should scale better than nginx on multi-core cpus"

"I have no idea what i m doing so i dove nose-first into nginx -- which i had never used before -- because someone told me it s better than apache at dealing with lots of small tasks and requests -- not that i would know how to turn apache into a proxy mind you"

"Although this thread is more than a year old it still merits from the fact that no one mentioned about the not so recent innovations of nginx lighty and other web servers which scale much better than apache at higher concurrency and consume lesser resources"

"Apache can be just as good but requires building from source and knowing exactly what configuration to use to match nginx;however apache has more features and is a little easier to work with"

"The general feel has always been that nginx is lighter and easier to configure but on the flip side perhaps isn t as fully featured as apache because of that"

"Tornadoweb and nginx are popular web servers for the moment and many benchmarkings show that they have a better performance than apache under certain circumstances"

"Nginx is faster and lighter but many people find it easier to work with apache because of .htaccess support nginx does not have an analog due to performance concern"

"I have configured tomcat with apache web server in past and never slowness problem before and practically speaking nginx is said to much lighter and faster than apache web server"

"Nginx is more performant than apache in most cases with high-levels of requests"

"So jnlp jar files can be hosted on any http server even not java based apache nginx"

"Note that in any case for increased security and fast static file css js delivery you might want to add a reverse proxy layer nginx usually provides better performance but apache works as well before the nodejs python server"

"The number of concurrent requests are limited by the number of children threads yes but apache is not spawning a new thread child for every request which would be ridiculously slow even with threads creation and teardown for every request would be way too slow;nginx uses a master-worker model"

"I am not going into how to do rewrites on nginx because it is much more complicated than apache"

"I found one answer here and it looks much simpler than the apache one react-router and nginx basically you need to tell the web server to forward all requests to your react s index.html and therefore letting react-router handle the routing"

"So i understand there are two kinds of servers first kind is web server or http server such as nginx apache caddy another kind is app server such as tomcat undertow"

"Next you ll find that the threading model of nginx is much more efficient than apache s for what you re doing"

"I chose nginx because i ve read that it is lighter and more scalable than apache and can be used as a web server or as a reverse proxy"

"But doing that kind of things with apache is rather painfull and is easier with nginx"

"Nginx can be configured to only respond to requests matching a predefined pattern far easier than with apache"

"I think you would like lemp e stands for the nginx and for a lot small projects it would be better than apache"

"Nginx is better at handling requests since it does not spawn a new process for every request unlike apache"

"If you want to use something in front of it though i suggest you use something like nginx better than apache since nginx is also asynchronous like node and it s performs really well at serving static files"

"I will say that nginx tends to handle heavier loads better than apache though so take a look at that"

"Why nginx might be better than apache when one is long polling and why long polling is better than periodically polling a server"

"16 cores apache would scale better than nginx while nginx would process more client requests"

"4 i d like to understand why nginx might be better than apache when one is long polling and why long polling is better than periodically polling a server"

"The remote server is set up to allow very few maximum concurrent clients generally nginx handles many concurrent clients better than apache since it doesn t need to fork a new process for every request so if it becomes an issue you might want to look into switching web servers"

"Nginx with its own mod_wsgi seems to perform even better than apache but hey you didn t ask about that"

"I aways heart that nginx performs better than apache server"

"Apache made a claim that apache 2.4 will offer performance as good or better than nginx"

"Nginx + gunicorn is likely to work better than apache + modwsgi at this point in time"

"I recommend you to use nginx as an reverse proxy since the configuration is easier and the performance is much better than apache"

"Nginx is better suited than apache as it is light and single threaded vs apache thread per request in most normal setups"

"I ve heard it suggested that i use nginx as a reverse proxy in front of apache and node.js is that a better solution than just nginx"

"Just one tip if only job for the http server will be just proxying the play apps consider using some lighter option than apache for an example nginx or lighttpd you ll find sample configurations for all of only job for the http server will be just proxying the play apps in play s documentation"

"Further than that i wouldn t use apache at all if i needed to optimize things nginx is much better as a server a server s even faster than node.js for serving static files for example"

"If you want to use .htaccess files you will need to install apache which is a web server using a different heavier architecture;nginx doesn t support .htaccess files that is an apache feature"

"Nginx or other server is not much more efficient than apache"

"You can the apache run more than one programmer to listen the same port but if you just want to a map 80 which you open to the public to the backend server you can use a nginx as your delegation server"

"Since it s not running as a listening server i can t use nginx node_cgi is not mature with apache how am i supposed to run this sample"

"Apache mod_wsgi is still a more than acceptable solution and it will actually perform better with less resources when run as;nginx - apache mod_wsgi"

"Also you should consider using nginx as server that s more flexible than apache"

"Also when your setting up the server i would say start with nginx it s uses less resources than apache"

"Nginx is actually quite a lot easier than apache in my opinion"

"Here is a setup i use to redirect blog to a meteor server i don t use passenger with apache;this works but i must agree with kalid-rafik that nginx is a much easier solution"

"Apache isn t really a typical setup for python in my experience;python webapps are usually daemons that are exposed to the public with a reverse proxy webserver in front nginx is very common"

"Also nginx s configuration is much more flexible than apache and by having it on the front end it gives you a lot of flexibility"

"I wouldn t recommend putting apache in front of node however;nginx is better but not really necessary anymore"

"Also nginx uses a lot less memory than apache"

"If you still want to run with less mb of ram then i d recommend nginx over apache"

"Nginx is more picky about case of file names than apache"

"You could also try using caddy web server as a reverse proxy it is the simplest to manage that i ve come across and the config file is much simpler than apache or nginx"

"I think nginx is much better than apache"

"Nginx vs apache makes apache better"

"How can nginx performs better than apache"

"Nginx also happens to be better than apache at writing logfiles interestingly"

"Also what makes nginx better than apache in this case"

"I want to move to nginx since it s better than apache"

"Uwsgi is better if you are using nginx i find nginx far better than apache personally"

It seems your apache is more busy than your nginx

Apache is more flexable then nginx but it comes with a high price in performance

I ve been attempting to upgrade to php 7.1 using phpbrew and elected to install it with nginx as i read everywhere that it was simpler than apache not that simple in my humble opinion

Ulling numbers from thin air for illustrative purposes serving 10 000 simultaneous connections would probably only cause nginx to use a few megabytes of ram whereas apache would probably consume hundreds of megabytes if it could do it at all;nginx is faster at serving static files and consumes much less memory for concurrent requests because nginx is event-based it doesn t need to spawn new processes or threads for each request so it memory usage is very low

Anyway i prefer using nginx instead of apache you can set nginx to use sockets which is how puma starts by default and there are more tutorials for nginx+puma there s the config for nginx on that link too

The syntax for nginx configuration is different but more clean than apache

If apache is not a requirement then you can use another server for example nginx;there is a tutorial for getting nginx running on an ec2 environment

I m new to nginx and want to try it out since it apparently is much faster and less resource-hungry than apache but i can t see why this would be such a hard thing to achieve

Id love to know how to solve this since using nginx sometimes is a better option than apache and having this issue with fuelphp framework and not being able to use this two great tools together is awful

I have read that you need apache to run wordpress but this is false;nginx does not use .htaccess

You can have nginx take error response codes coming from apache in consideration and act differently by use of proxy_intercept_errors which combined with error_page can allow you to rewrite response codes error messages from apache to masquarade app failures as service unavailable;nginx will not alter the 500 from the app as long as it doesn t step on a problem contacting fetching data from apache

Nginx is very fast much lighter than apache

Apache mod_php is much more stable and cleaner while nginx will often deliver http bad gateway error coded in 502

Thus using keep alive on the apache side is pointless when using nginx in front of it;because though nginx doesn t implement keep alive it should drop the connections promptly as it will have no intention of reusing them so you shouldn t suffer if you do forget to turn of keep alive in apache when using nginx as front end

On apache it runs as a plugin module just the way mod_php does;for nginx i m not sure

If you need to use 443 in production i highly recommend using apache or nginx to listen on the ssl port and proxy the traffic to your .net code

I ve used apache passenger and nginx passenger on a vps and memory usage was better with nginx;i didn t do any benchmarks with my particular app but nginx just feels faster

Possible hack could be run apache nginx on that ec2

In fact many dns and web host providers actually provide this functionality as a service and will host the equivalent of above configuration for you though not necessarily with apache;nginx is probably more likely for this purpose these days

The fact that what you want to do works in apache as-is is more of a bug than a feature this works differently in nginx by design and in order to prevent a whole class of security vulnerabilities

Apache assumes a leading forward slash;nginx does not

There are ways to improve apache efficiency by coalescing all your rules into a single htaccess or through the use of location blocks in the config;nginx is slightly safer due to packing less stuff that is built-in and requiring cgi processes for almost every mundane task however

However my experience is that configuring it in apache is significantly more complex than configuring it in nginx and even with worker it still is not quite as efficient with nginx;disadvantages of moving to nginx - not many but things to keep in mind

Nginx uses less memory than apache given the size of your setup i would definitely recommend that

Servers like lighthttp and nginx can handle large amounts of traffic in much less memory than apache if you can sacrifice apache s power and flexibility or if you just don t need those things which often you don t

Also have a look at nginx for example it is fast and uses less memory than apache to handle client connections

Apache has been the leader in web server ecosystem for 20 years and is much more popular however nginx is not without its fair share of advantages;while apache is a thing of the past nginx is the future of web apps and websites

I m about to try apache but most write ups suggest that this is worse than nginx at this job

Using your own server for authentication if you dismiss my advise to use the google-servers for authentication then the scope of the tagged issues is getting larger as server-configuration apache nginx ... and server-side programming-languages php python ... might be involved

First of all i d like to point out that hiding what powers your web app isn t really worth the time or effort with that said if you really really want to there are a couple of things you could try changing the defaults of apache tell all behaviour with these directives assuming you are using apache not really familiar with nginx servertokens prod serversignature off php will add a x-powered-by http header if expose_php was set to on in your php.ini file

Not totally familiar with nginx or apache log but i think most logs contain a timestamp an http request the document requested and status etc. and an ip address

I also know there is nginx and haproxy although i have never used either of them and have a lot more experience with apache

Nginx apache are general purpose web servers;apache does not know how to serve rack applications and puma doesn t know how to do a bunch of other things nginx apache do cgi scripts url rewriting proxies balancing blacklisting... rack is a library for ruby that accepts parsed http requests from an app server funnels them through a configurable stack of middleware such as session handling passing the request object to a handler and returning the response object the app server making web development in ruby easy

Nginx does not have the 256 connection limit that apache does due to an asynchronous approach to handling connections;not sure what requirements your server has but a basic nginx swap from apache is pretty simple and can be done following step by step tutorials online like this one

This works but only in a default apache environment;nginx needs more configurations

This is valid directive whether you use apache or not;you don t have to use it but you better do because nginx is very good at serving static files

We have a few clients who have very high traffic sites running apache slower than nginx with varnish in front of it and they get way more traffic than you are saying with little to no performance problems

Hi everyone i need help with this i ve already set up nginx + php and it works great faster than apache my problem is how to setup a multiple projects in one ip

Apache s design is thread per client while nginx uses the reactor pattern meaning - nginx can handle much more traffic than apache as a web server about 50 times the number of requests

Apache automatically sees the location header in the response and forces the response code to be 300-series if you haven t previously set a response code of your own;nginx does not do this -- it expects you set the proper response code yourself

But you d be crazy to do so apache uses a thread per connection and websockets uses persistent connections using a whole thread per connection when you re expecting a lot of proxy websockets in apache is a waste of resources a non blocking proxy like nginx makes a lot more sense

Nginx is quicker though honestly you ll struggle to see the difference except for very high volume sites and has quickly become the web server of choice for a lot of people if you don t have any specific need for apache for your code

Apache is more friendly configuration wise htaccess htpasswd rewrite rules etc nginx is fast in regard to static assets

If apache is completely down you should be getting a 502 bad gateway because in your setup apache is the gateway for nginx;the same will happen if nginx does not like apache s response in a way when apache sends a response which has headers exceeding nginx s proxy_buffer_size yes you should be getting 504 gateway timeout when apache app is timing out in relation to nginx timeouts see point 2

Nginx apache both are nginx is faster response than apache nginx have different rewrite rule with laravel nginx is good choice nginx have fastcgi so you can use same like apache here is 1 understanding link sorry for my bad english hope this help you

Mail.domain.com-le-ssl.conf generated by let s encrypt my apache2 virtual host config for reverse proxy mail.example.com.conf please note that my original apache2 config file is because i don t really need ssl encryption between apache and nginx the rewrite rule was added when i installed let s encrypt certificate on apache mail server for mail.example.com

The switchover to nginx really had little to do with the rewrite rule and more to do with getting away from apache 2.2 default upstream version for centos however with nginx rewrite rules are more straight forward than apache s imo

In fact nginx can use select instead of epoll if you compile it with the --with-select_module option and i bet it will still be more efficient than apache

Much safer to have apache or also my preferred nginx listening on 80 and passing along the requests;nginx is friendlier for sockets as well and someday you ll want those

Nginx uses an event based non blocking single thread and the memory usage is relatively much lower than apache