3 ms·

We chose Apache as it is the common front-end to the rest of our stacks (the idea is that you can mix and match all the apps in our library and serve them throu

We chose Apache as it is the common front-end to the rest of our stacks (the idea is that you can mix and match all the apps in our library and serve them through a common Apache frontend). Regarding performance, what you mention is correct with older versions of Apache. Apache 2.4 with the Event MPM is pretty much equivalent to NGINX in terms of performance and memory footprint. Having said that, we do include NGINX in some of our other infrastructure stack and we plan to expand its usage (as well as provide other NoSQL engines, we just started with the most popular :)

davyjones 13y ago
> Apache 2.4 with the Event MPM is pretty much equivalent to NGINX in terms of performance and memory footprint. This has piqued my interest enough to look into it. Aside, are you guys hiring remote? ;-)
DigitalSea 13y ago
You are right in many aspects in regards to Apache 2.4 and NGINX. However, when traffic and intensity of traffic ramps up, you notice that NGINX still comes out in front in terms of CPU usage especially, like night and day in most cases. If you run both on different machines and send the same amount of traffic to them, the system monitor shows that NGINX easily uses less CPU. Apache's real strength is its market share, not its track record for being resource respective. Cool stuff though guys, good to see some MongoDB ready stacks and looking forward to what else you release in the coming months.