Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Why do people still use apache instead of fast and lightweight nginx? - Page 2
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

Why do people still use apache instead of fast and lightweight nginx?

2

Comments

  • nemnem Member, Host Rep
    edited May 2020

    Familiarity is one aspect. CVE-2019-11043 illuminates in detail the consequences of configuring something you're not intimately familiar with. I'm not sure why anyone would dispatch a file to PHP-FPM without first seeing if the file actually exists, but the configuration was widespread enough to garner attention.

    Other issue is with keepalives on, testing locally with a static file, NGINX is ~27k req/sec. Apache is 10k req/sec spread across 10 concurrent requests. ~1.5 ms per request won't make a world of difference when your WordPress blog takes 4000 ms to load up because it's stuffed with unnecessary plugins. Your bottleneck is in PHP. Handoff from NGINX/Apache is thus insignificant.

    Now, if you're building a CDN, then NGINX no question. Always pick the right tool for the job. Sometimes knowing how to use a tool is more important than picking a tool.

    Thanked by 2pbx Saahib
  • raindog308raindog308 Administrator, Veteran

    aj_potc said: Now Nginx, on the other hand... I think I've heard that pronounced at least three different ways!

    Guy I work with pronounced it with a long i.

    En-GYE-Necks. Sounded like an anatomical term.

    I told him he had to stop because it was driving me nuts. He still says LYE-NUCKS. Surprisingly, he's a crackerjack Linux admin.

    Thanked by 1ErawanArifNugroho
  • ViridWebViridWeb Member, Host Rep

    Because you can't replace your father. No matter how cool and rich your father-in-law :wink: :lol: :lol:

    Apache is the father of all webserver :wink:

  • raindog308raindog308 Administrator, Veteran
    edited May 2020

    ViridWeb said: Because you can't replace your father. No matter how cool and rich your father-in-law

    Apache is the father of all webserver

    Actually, Apache replaced its father, the father of all web servers: NCSA httpd

    And NCSA httpd replaced its father, httpd.

    Thanked by 3TimboJones jsg _MS_
  • pbxpbx Member
    edited May 2020

    nem said: Your bottleneck is in PHP. Handoff from NGINX/Apache is thus insignificant.

    This. In most cases the webserver isn't the bottleneck.

    It should be noted that it's now possible to use MPM event: it's not as bad at it has been at some point, even if it's not as efficient as nginx.

    Thanked by 1webcraft
  • Harambe said: Engine-X is the correct pronunciation.

    I did say 'used to' :)

  • Tony40Tony40 Member

    I use both, for me Apache is better and easy to config... Apache work out of the box.

    Thanked by 1RedSox
  • @raindog308 said:

    deank said: Pretty much the same reason as why we insist on living on Earth when there are better planets to be.

    Because we lack the technology to go somewhere else/use another web server? I don't think so.

    CyberneticTitan said: For companies with sites already running Apache the attitude is along the lines of "if it ain't broke don't fix it".

    This. Apache works. I find nginx to be much easier to admin (and it takes less resources/is more performant as well), but there are lots of admins who cut their teeth on apache.

    deank said: Humans will eventually have heated debates on why they insisted living on Earth at one point of human history.

    But that point is not now. There is no feasible alternative to living elsewhere. Certainly not "better planets". The only feasible thing in our solar system is Mars, and I don't think living in a biodome on Mars is a "better planet". And regardless, we lack the experience at best and the technology in all probability to make this reasonable, certainly at scale.

    Extra-solar travel is not possible. Well, perhaps if you believe in ark ships or intergenerational travel, perhaps it is, but that's really not feasible either. Heck, we have a hard enough time keeping people in LEO for a year.

    Extra-solar travel is likely never possible. Ooops...sorry to disappoint sf fans. Always cracks me up when people thump their chest about science and yet also believe that FTL somehow must be achievable.

    @raindog308 said:

    deank said: Thus, the end is nigh.

    deank said: Humans will eventually have heated debates

    Incompatible statements!

    Um, your deank plugin that rewrites everything he says to mean the opposite isn't working. Until then, just mentality flip whatever he says for it to make sense.

    Thanked by 1raindog308
  • why not litespeed/openlitespeed?

  • Apache is not slow or inefficient when used in MPM_EVENT mode and not the legacy Prefork... the world just needs to grow (Debian 10 dropped prefork by default)

    Secondly... there are legacy apps that need htaccess support and yes you just can't convince the owners to upgrade them. I personally have legacy old apps that use hundreds of 4+ levels nested .htaccess rules that would be impossible to parse through Nginx efficiently.

    Thanked by 1pbx
  • CRISPRCRISPR Member
    edited May 2020

    Integration, legacy and marketshare. Take for example, Bitcoin, it's worth the most but compared to newer tech, it's considered a dinosaur (slow tx, mempool congestion). The reason why it's number #1 is because it had first mover advantage and is widely supported. Apache is the same imho. However, in saying that, Apache has kept up with development and is not much worse after you tune it, when compared to Litespeed, Nginx.

    Thanked by 1pbx
  • poissonpoisson Member

    For most end users, choosing between Apache and Nginx is like choosing between blue and red underwear. They both will do the job well. I just happen to learn Apache first, and I don't see a compelling reason to change based on my experience.

  • netomxnetomx Moderator, Veteran

    @deank said:
    I believe Jupiter has a pretty suitable moon, all ocean one. Europa or something it's called.

    So, Jovian is possible. Actually, mankind will likely need a mid-point space station of some sort in middle of SOL. A space station among Jovian moons is a possibility with miners mining for various materials from moons or the ring itself.

    Any planet is better than Earth, if you are a sci-fi fan.

    Sadly, I doubt many humans are up for it, given how we seem to suffer from a basic social lockdown due to Chinavirus. If they can't handle the simple lockdown, no way will we be able to live in space.
    Isolation will be bread and butter in space after all.

    Why are you spamming?

  • deankdeank Member, Troll
    edited May 2020

    Ask @Raindog307, he started it.

  • raindog308raindog308 Administrator, Veteran

    deank said: Ask @Raindog307, he started it.

    Ignore that poser. Nothing but fake news spewing out of his wannabe face.

  • defaultdefault Veteran

    If an admin moves away from Apache, that admin would have to adapt to new configurations and new management; just as humanity would need to adapt to new gravity and atmosphere on other planets (keeping the comparison).

  • deankdeank Member, Troll

    @raindog308 said:
    Ignore that poser. Nothing but fake news spewing out of his wannabe face.

    Oh, mi Gosh, @Raindog306 is actually flaming me!

    Or raining me?

  • raindog308raindog308 Administrator, Veteran

    deank said: Oh, mi Gosh, @Raindog306 is actually flaming me!

    He is? Flag the post and I'll mod his ass with extreme prejudice.

    Or raining me?

    I'll make it rain on you. Meet me out back.

    Thanked by 1TimboJones
  • defaultdefault Veteran

    Thanked by 2TimboJones netomx
  • deankdeank Member, Troll
    edited May 2020

    Cannot.

    You see, I wanna be a space cowboy. Luna, Mars, Venus, Pluto, I wanna go there.

    However, our dear thug, @Raindog305, is a true and thorough Earthian nord. He doesn't wanna leave mother Earth.

    We are not meant to be together.

  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker

    It seems that .htaccess files is a major reason for people to stay with apache. So: why doesn't nginx have a module to work with .htaccess files?
    I'm asking because on one side .htaccess seems to be sooooo important but on the other side not important enough to bring them to nginx.
    (FWIW I'm unbiased and no particular fan of either one)

    Thanked by 2Abdussamad dedipromo
  • Is it because Apache has a more process-driven approach than the event-driven based that NGINX does? sing event-driven architecture to handle multiple requests has a few downsides too I guess. Anyone else thinks otherwise, please let me know :)

  • hzrhzr Member

    jsg said: I'm asking because on one side .htaccess seems to be sooooo important but on the other side not important enough to bring them to nginx.

    there is somewhat of a difference between .htaccess and mod_rewrite use. i doubt 99% of users touch any real .htaccess directives allowed by apache, but they all deploy "clean URL" mod_rewrite rules.

    nginx requires being able to edit the conf file for your virtualhost to rewrite.

    iirc, htaccess files slow down processing a decent bit on apache, especially if there are multiple in folders.

    Thanked by 1jsg
  • pbxpbx Member
    edited May 2020

    hzr said: nginx requires being able to edit the conf file for your virtualhost to rewrite.

    iirc, htaccess files slow down processing a decent bit on apache, especially if there are multiple in folders.

    And that's why apache is still used a lot even if in some cases it's slower than nginx: if makes it easy to setup shared hosting and to let users have some control over the behavior of the webserver for their domain, without them ever touching the config file. For low traffic sites, in most cases you don't need the best performance (and if that's the case and MPM event is not enough for you, you can add varnish or nginx in front of apache).

    Thanked by 1Abdussamad
  • verjinverjin Member

    Because apache is from friends and nginx is not!

  • zenkizenki Member

    Apache is easier to config (for me), but I am starting to move towards OpenLitespeed

  • PHDanPHDan Member

    Simple, because:

    Thanked by 1TimboJones
  • jsgjsg Member, Resident Benchmarker
    edited May 2020

    @Shahbaazboom said:
    Is it because Apache has a more process-driven approach than the event-driven based that NGINX does? sing event-driven architecture to handle multiple requests has a few downsides too I guess. Anyone else thinks otherwise, please let me know :)

    I do (think otherwise). In fact, both processes/threads and event based have their reason to exist. To summarize it, processes/threads allows to spread the load over multiple cores while event based gets the most out of one core and is much cheaper.

    But both can be combined in diverse ways and it's not really a one or the other situation (although that usually makes the configuration for the end user quite complicated).

    FWIW, my personal reason to not even look at apache since many years is the fact that their config is XML based, which I consider an abomination except for rare exceptions. It seems to me that the nginx people have thought more and better about their design. But then, to be fair, apache has been designed some millenia earlier (tongue in cheek) and maybe at that time XML and processes seemed to be the smart was to go (or imperator Nero forced them to take that route).

  • jsg said: XML based

    i wouldn't really call it xml

  • @Abdussamad said:

    jsg said: XML based

    i wouldn't really call it xml

    It's not. I've never thought apache and nginx conf were that different that one had to exclude it. On quick glance, it's basically {}'s and ;'s vs <>'s and structure is more or less the same.

Sign In or Register to comment.