3 ms·

What are some of these "many ways"? because I strongly favor the quality of life under nginx over that of apache. For smaller projects, these days I reach for C

What are some of these "many ways"? because I strongly favor the quality of life under nginx over that of apache. For smaller projects, these days I reach for Caddy which is even more pleasant to use than nginx.

wolco 8y ago
My personal reasons: - PHP under apache is faster - Small config files per site - .htaccess at the folder level when required I usually use both and serve php from apache and serve static content over nginx. Best of both worlds.
- apple4ever 8y ago
  .htaccess is the thing I strongly dislike about Apache. With nginx the config is centralized in a specific location. With Apache, configs are all over the place.
maheart 8y ago
Not OP, but here are some (IMO big) advantages Apache has over nginx (FOSS): - Provides HTTP caching (via mod_cache) - Simplifies the deployment stack by providing built-in interpreters for dynamic languages. e.g. mod_php (i.e. you don't need php-fpm), mod_wsgi (i.e. you don't need gunicorn) - Load-balancer upstream affinity ("stickiness") based on HTTP cookies - Load-balancing based on upstream's connection count (via mod_heartbeat) - Built-in Let's Encrypt integration (via mod_md) tl;dr provides a lot of features out of the box -- some people may see this as "bloat" or overly tight coupling, but this provides simplicity.
- coder543 8y ago
  the FOSS version of nginx has great built-in caching, so I disagree there, but the others I can agree on, especially mod_php. I don't ever use PHP these days, so it's not something I routinely think about, but I'm sure Apache is better for PHP than nginx. I feel that the let's encrypt CLI clients are plenty good for nginx, to the point that installing a new module for apache (let alone nginx) is more work than just running a CLI client. If you want TLS automation, Caddy is superbly good at fetching its own certs, and you don't have to fiddle with installing an additional module to do it.

wolco 8y ago

My personal reasons: - PHP under apache is faster - Small config files per site - .htaccess at the folder level when required I usually use both and serve php from apache and serve static content over nginx. Best of both worlds.

apple4ever 8y ago
.htaccess is the thing I strongly dislike about Apache. With nginx the config is centralized in a specific location. With Apache, configs are all over the place.

maheart 8y ago

Not OP, but here are some (IMO big) advantages Apache has over nginx (FOSS): - Provides HTTP caching (via mod_cache) - Simplifies the deployment stack by providing built-in interpreters for dynamic languages. e.g. mod_php (i.e. you don't need php-fpm), mod_wsgi (i.e. you don't need gunicorn) - Load-balancer upstream affinity ("stickiness") based on HTTP cookies - Load-balancing based on upstream's connection count (via mod_heartbeat) - Built-in Let's Encrypt integration (via mod_md) tl;dr provides a lot of features out of the box -- some people may see this as "bloat" or overly tight coupling, but this provides simplicity.

coder543 8y ago
the FOSS version of nginx has great built-in caching, so I disagree there, but the others I can agree on, especially mod_php. I don't ever use PHP these days, so it's not something I routinely think about, but I'm sure Apache is better for PHP than nginx. I feel that the let's encrypt CLI clients are plenty good for nginx, to the point that installing a new module for apache (let alone nginx) is more work than just running a CLI client. If you want TLS automation, Caddy is superbly good at fetching its own certs, and you don't have to fiddle with installing an additional module to do it.