Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:26:25 -0500
From:      Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists@tx.rr.com>
To:        Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com>
Cc:        FreeBSD Questions List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Apache vs. nginx
Message-ID:  <369EA14C9A8386079EDF53CA@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <090D2CE4-FB19-4B40-ADCF-CE3FC1C45C1E@mac.com>
References:  <35DA07557A36800645B39187@localhost> <090D2CE4-FB19-4B40-ADCF-CE3FC1C45C1E@mac.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thanks, Chuck.  That's very useful input.

--On July 17, 2012 10:40:30 AM -0700 Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> wrote:

> On Jul 17, 2012, at 7:40 AM, Paul Schmehl wrote:
>> I'm the admin for a small hobby website (Stovebolt.com - about 7 million
>> hits/mo).  We're fixin to buy a new server, and since I have to start
>> from scratch (install FreeBSD and all the needed ports), I'm wondering
>> if anyone on this list has switched from Apache to nginx.
>>
>> If you have, what has your experience been like?  Was the change
>> relatively easy?  (I'm not intimidated by technical details.  I've been
>> running FreeBSD on these servers for about 12 years now.)  Was the
>> performance better?  (We've not been having any problems with Apache to
>> this point.) Is there sufficient support from addon apps to run a site
>> with a php-driven forum?
>
> I've compared them; since I know Apache...rather well, switching to nginx
> didn't strike me as a useful change at any of the sites for which I've
> setup or managed their webservers.  You have to invoke external scripts
> like a PHP forum via FastCGI (what nginx calls ngx_http_fastcgi_module);
> using and tuning FastCGI separately from the webserver itself definitely
> has some advantages, but those same advantages can be obtained in Apache
> by using mod_fcgi instead of using mod_php directly.
>
> Apache is bulkier per process than nginx but has more modules and config
> options available for it; nginx seems to have been tuned more for server
> farms hosting a lot of low-volume vanity domains, so it has minimal
> overhead, implements IP-based and name-based virtual hosting eloquently,
> implements bandwidth rate controls as a core functionality, etc.
>
> I cannot recall encountering a circumstance where the base performance of
> the webserver itself turned out to be the primary criterion for "website
> performance"; sites are almost always constrained by bandwidth and/or the
> performance of the dynamic scripts, database backend, etc-- and not by
> the webserver's ability to serve static resources.
>
> Regards,



-- 
Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst
As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions
are my own and not those of my employer.
*******************************************
"It is as useless to argue with those who have
renounced the use of reason as to administer
medication to the dead." Thomas Jefferson
"There are some ideas so wrong that only a very
intelligent person could believe in them." George Orwell




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?369EA14C9A8386079EDF53CA>