5 ms·
You know, apache 2.4 is quite comparable to nginx in performance and overall badaness. I wouldn't write Apache off so easily.
by SEJeff 14y ago
You know, apache 2.4 is quite comparable to nginx in performance and overall badaness. I wouldn't write Apache off so easily.
- girvo 14y agoSee, I know you're probably right, but here's the thing: I have a 1Gb VPS that I run multiple web applications off for my personal use. With Apache2, I can get it to run them all under my RAM usage with a lot of tweaking. With nginx, I just install it.
- pavs 14y agoIt took me 2 years to finally realize this. Before that, I jumped from one beefed up dedicated server to another just to host few measly, low traffic websites. In my experience, even the most optimized apache installation will not have similar memory footprint as a default nginx install. I have a question for people who are more proficient in web-servers, what are some of the scenarios where apache is a better choice (feature/speed/stability) than nginx?
- fooyc 14y agoApache has much more features, more modules, supports more auth schemes, etc. And the documentation is awesome. Apache configuration is generally better, less WTF. E.g. the nginx headers module [1] allows you to either set a single header, or an expires directive, but not both. There is a HeadersMoreModule, which is more flexible, but in general nginx configuration looks like that. Aliases/url rewrites/per-dir/per-location configuration are a mess in nginx. Want to set some special directives for the /assets location ? no problem. Want to set special directives for .css files ? no problem. Well, actually if you have .css files in /assets, if will have either directives for /assets or .css, but not both. [1] http://wiki.nginx.org/HttpHeadersModule http://wiki.nginx.org/HttpHeadersModule
- fooyc 14y agoI bet you not only switched from nginx to apache, but also from some-language-module-loaded-in-every-apache-children to something like fastcgi. This is what actually made all the difference.