3 ms·
Apache is faster than NGINX. NGINX is faster than Apache. If that confuses you, then you don't understand http daemons. It's all about how you benchmark. This
by maratd 15y ago
Apache is faster than NGINX. NGINX is faster than Apache. If that confuses you, then you don't understand http daemons. It's all about how you benchmark.
This particular benchmark is 100% pointless and tells you nothing. He was performing the benchmark on one machine. In other words, all was local. You are never going to do that in production. What would be the point? In production, you have this thing called a network connection. It is always the limiting factor.
Somebody do a benchmark with the client and server thousands of miles apart. And tell me how much RAM and CPU is used by the daemons during the test! I am 100% sure both daemons can saturate the pipe. The relevant part is how they do that.
- peterwwillis 15y agoHahaha, holy jesus, I didn't realize he was running ApacheBench and the httpds on the same machine. That's insane just from a local resource starvation standpoint.
- randallsquared 15y agoWhatever the overhead of the benchmark tool, it would be the same for Apache and nginx, presumably, so can be factored out.
- peterwwillis 15y agoHow much CPU/memory is ApacheBench using? Is Apache using more CPU/memory than Nginx? Would Apache have had better performance if its resources weren't limited? Was ApacheBench able to perform as fast as possible? It is good not to presume anything when dealing with technology.
- victork2 15y agoYeah... I stated that in a previous comment but the whole software benchmarking news are often bullshit. I mean just look at the setup: _ Single machine _ Static files (seriously ?) _ Incomplete or even incorrect configuration of Apache, I don't know for Nginx But you know what ? That's always the same thing, people prefer to look at benchmarks, sit back in their chairs and have this immense satisfaction of not having started a project with that "slow/under-performing tool that is Apache, because Nginx is so much better". Whatever... It's really tiring. If you were to build a real website, time delivery for static files you simply... do not care! And anyway that amount of data per sec, that rarely met. And if it's met, you rent a CDN for static content. But as they say : "Benchmarkers are going to benchmark" (even if it's useless)
- natrius 15y agoSomebody do a benchmark with the client and server thousands of miles apart. That is not the right way to load test. You're not trying to determine how many pages a single client can request from a server. You're trying to isolate the performance variable. To do that, you test from a machine on the same network. The resulting values are how many requests the server can handle in a given period of time, regardless of how those requests get to the server.
- maratd 15y ago> That is not the right way to load test. False. > You're not trying to determine how many pages a single client can request from a server. True. The reason you benchmark a server with a client from a thousand miles away is that you want to know what effect common Internet noise and delays will have on RAM and CPU consumption for the http daemon. Conditions on a LAN are pretty close to ideal. Your router won't drop packets and will perform fairly well. That isn't anywhere close to true on the Internet as a whole. You do not want to push an http daemon to production that works like a champ on your LAN and has a meltdown in the real world. You want to benchmark under as close to production conditions as you can. Period.