3 ms·

It should be remembered that NGINX is used as a reverse proxy for a lot of servers behind the scenes. That NGINX is the web server identified up front doesn't m

by dano 5y ago

It should be remembered that NGINX is used as a reverse proxy for a lot of servers behind the scenes. That NGINX is the web server identified up front doesn't mean as much as it might because of this architectural construct. I use NGINX to front a sites that have Apache on the back end and as a result, the Internet spiders think my websites are running NGINX rather than Apache. NGINX is incredibly easy to configure as a reverse proxy, image router, and SSL front-end. Thanks Igor.

nkozyra 5y ago
Granted I've done exactly this before, but why put Nginx in front of Apache? In my experience it added headaches without any real benefit. (Unless you don't mean Apache webserver but rather some other Apache product)
- tinus_hn 5y ago
  I have done this to host multiple services (running using multiple users and setups) from one host.
- singron 5y ago
  Nginx manages a ton of connections better and can serve static files very fast. It can then multiplex the dynamic requests into fewer connections to Apache. If you mean why not only use nginx, I would guess that's easier than changing your legacy systems to use nginx (e.g. if you have a ton of htaccess files). It's also possible you got better performance with mod_php although most people seem to claim that php-fpm with nginx is faster.
  - nkozyra 5y ago
    > If you mean why not only use nginx Yes, this is what I meant. I originally wrote a SaaS app that was hosted through Apache and ended up putting NGINX on top of it for the aforementioned reasons. But eventually testing showed that removing Apache just made the whole thing a whole lot more manageable. I have friends with similar anecdotes. Just putting NGINX in front from the get-go would have saved a lot of tech debt.
- realityking 5y ago
  2012-2015 I worked at a shared hosting company and towards the end of my tenure there we revamped the architecture to be centered on nginx (SSL termination, HTTP2 support, etc.) and invested quite a bit in API and GUI support for rewrite rules, redirects, etc. However, for better or worse, a lot of the software people want to run on shared hosting come with a .htaccess file and documentation for how to configure it otherwise. So we gave customers a choice to put Apache behind nginx. Unfortunately I left too early to learn what %age of customers ended up enabling Apache but they‘re still running this architecture today.
melony 5y ago
These days the cool kids love to call reverse proxies "load balancers" (when you have n>1 backends).
berkes 5y ago
> That NGINX is the web server identified up front doesn't mean as much as it might because of this architectural construct. The exact same argument can be made to explain why nginx is undercounted. A lot of setups will run nginx behind proxies, so you'll count a proxy: a Varnish, a single nginx, cloudfront servers (are they running nginx?) while in reality there may be many nginx-es running. Nonetheless: nginx is a gift and thanks go out to Igor, regardless of how good the spiders can count the number nginx instances.

by dano 5y ago

nkozyra 5y ago

Granted I've done exactly this before, but why put Nginx in front of Apache? In my experience it added headaches without any real benefit. (Unless you don't mean Apache webserver but rather some other Apache product)

tinus_hn 5y ago
I have done this to host multiple services (running using multiple users and setups) from one host.
singron 5y ago
Nginx manages a ton of connections better and can serve static files very fast. It can then multiplex the dynamic requests into fewer connections to Apache. If you mean why not only use nginx, I would guess that's easier than changing your legacy systems to use nginx (e.g. if you have a ton of htaccess files). It's also possible you got better performance with mod_php although most people seem to claim that php-fpm with nginx is faster.
- nkozyra 5y ago
  > If you mean why not only use nginx Yes, this is what I meant. I originally wrote a SaaS app that was hosted through Apache and ended up putting NGINX on top of it for the aforementioned reasons. But eventually testing showed that removing Apache just made the whole thing a whole lot more manageable. I have friends with similar anecdotes. Just putting NGINX in front from the get-go would have saved a lot of tech debt.
realityking 5y ago
2012-2015 I worked at a shared hosting company and towards the end of my tenure there we revamped the architecture to be centered on nginx (SSL termination, HTTP2 support, etc.) and invested quite a bit in API and GUI support for rewrite rules, redirects, etc. However, for better or worse, a lot of the software people want to run on shared hosting come with a .htaccess file and documentation for how to configure it otherwise. So we gave customers a choice to put Apache behind nginx. Unfortunately I left too early to learn what %age of customers ended up enabling Apache but they‘re still running this architecture today.

melony 5y ago

These days the cool kids love to call reverse proxies "load balancers" (when you have n>1 backends).

berkes 5y ago

> That NGINX is the web server identified up front doesn't mean as much as it might because of this architectural construct. The exact same argument can be made to explain why nginx is undercounted. A lot of setups will run nginx behind proxies, so you'll count a proxy: a Varnish, a single nginx, cloudfront servers (are they running nginx?) while in reality there may be many nginx-es running. Nonetheless: nginx is a gift and thanks go out to Igor, regardless of how good the spiders can count the number nginx instances.