Nginx or apache web server Sup Forums?

nginx or apache web server Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

github.com/reyk/httpd
learnbchs.org/
github.com/alibaba/tengine
w3techs.com/technologies/cross/web_server/ranking
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I find nginx less of a pain to install and configure. Also it's faster for static files.

Ditto on easier to configure

I'm just starting to get into web dev. Don't people usually use the Lamp stack? So would it be Lnmp now?

Nginx with gzip on. Also don't forget to get certbot.

No idea what that means.

Nginx

github.com/reyk/httpd

OP here, im too much of a brainlet to use that. but i have heard about this before

learnbchs.org/

Look up what you don't understand you dingus

Both. Apache for "dynamic" shit like php and nginx for static sites and reverse proxies.

Or you can just use nginx only and reverse proxy to things like node.js + express for dynamic shit

Can i use nginx for dynamic shit

I was thinking of debian + nginx + sql + php

>using php in 2015

I'm not the one writing the dynamic shit that I'm using apache for so I use apache with php.

Sure but it takes more work than apache because of apaches module system.

I'll stick to apache then

I'm surprised there isn't a fork of nginx with dynamic module loading

neither you poorfag

cowboy web server master race

pay your taxes cunt

Don't let meme names mean too much to you.

The LAMP stack is all about coding PHP and storing data in MySQL. Apache vs nginx is a matter of which config file syntax you want to use when setting it up.

github.com/alibaba/tengine

Apache if migrating from IIS, as nginx isn't fully native yet (must use Cygwin, or lose performance features)

Richards who say nginx is easier, have you tried xampp? A fucking mudslime from Sweden can use it its so easy. Nginx is a pain in the ass because nobody uses it.

Traefik > Caddy > Nginx > Lighttpd > The rest

nginx + php-fpm
Apache is ok but once you start dealing with any real load I found it was a bit of a pig. nginx has really grown on me, but now that people have mentioned it, yes, dynamic module loading would be nice. Having to recompile + reinstall isn't exactly hard though.

I just use the http-server node module when I want to fire up a temp file server

having to recompile the modules myself is the only complaint I have with nginx
but then again, I don't have to support brotli et al

Nginx. There's a reason we're moving away from Apache on all of our app servers. It's significantly more heavy.

XAMPP is for dev on a local machine, you should not be using it for anything remotely production ...

python3 has `python -m http.server`, same effect, pretty cool, iirc python2 is `python -m SimpleHTTPServer`

Look for LEMP stack, digital ocean has great guides on how to set them up with https and lets encrypt certificates.

While there's more info on apache lying around, Nginx is far more easier to set up so anything can be done with only the official documentation, also for PHP, php-fpm7 works very fast unlike older versions so thats not a problem nowadays.

The company I work for uses a traditional LAMP stack, works, but we could make better use of it by moving to nginx for LEMP instead.

Which is actually what is on the slate for 2018.

This thread reveals how gross Sup Forums is. Nginx for everything. Reverse proxy to dynamic

Apache faggots that haven't use anything but XAMPP are clearly fucking this thread, but Nginx for everything is not always the best use case.

HTTPS in nginx is a pain in the ass.

It's not really, like a handful of extra lines if anything.

>Nginx for everything is not always the best use case.
It pretty much is unless you're limited by someone else's config or something like a control panel that doesn't support it.

>HTTPS in nginx is a pain in the ass.
How?

t. retard. You literally only have to put in two lines, one is the path to your cert, the other is the path to the key.

Lighttpd

how do you even pronounce nginx

NodeJS with Ember Fastboot

Similar to engine-x.

niggers

Nginx for the load balancer and Apache for the web servers. We have one load balancer (obviously) and four web servers. Works really well.

The HTTPS connection is terminated at the load balancer, from there on in we use regular HTTP inside the data centre.

>gzip
>not brotli

nginx, fuck native americans and their software

Its easy to set up whats in xampp seperately. nginx is a clusterfuck. Apache can be run by a window licking spastics in a wheelchair, it's super easy idk what these people are on about.

too bad its really easy to fuck up fast-cgi and open up really obscure exploits through the rewrite rules.

I'm a noob with apache2, how can I load a module for only one page?

I'm using apache::gallery to turn the file index into a gallery with thumbnails, and the problem is that the virtual host refuses to display images unless they are in a file index. I just want to limit the module to one page for now before I learn things.

Use haproxy+keepalived for a LB.

nginx, easier to configure and better serves large amount of requests

The only answer can be NGINX. even for PHP you can use php-fpm with nginx as a reverse proxy. Apache is still comfy but its whole threaded approach will always be slower than nginx's asynchronous one. It's a shame but technology moves on.

>Nginx is a pain in the ass because nobody uses it.
>nobody uses it.

Why is round robin the default when least_conn is clearly the superior load balancing method?

Asynchronous = multi threaded
are u retard?

w3techs.com/technologies/cross/web_server/ranking

Phoneposter pls go.

That's false.

>Asynchronous = multi threaded

That's partially true, but it's not accurate.

more like:

Asynchronous = small thread pool within the operating system, within little to no thread local storage memory allocations.

multi threaded = applications manually creating a thread for each request, with large memory allocations for each thread's call stack. Threads are then destroyed after the request is served. multi threaded apps can know what else is running on the machine either.

To you, does creating and destorying lots of threads at the application level seem more or less efficient than maintaining a pool of threads at the OS level?

Apache doesn't create and destroy threads for each request though, it uses a pool

how, just install php-fpm and you're good to go

Fuck off from this site then

PHP 7 with NGINX is the best thing to use at the moment

Nah, that would be node with nginx

it still does stuff itself that the os has more information about and can thus use less memory and do it faster. Can Apache directly control DMA units on persistant storage and network interfaces for example? Answer: No

IMHO, PHP is similar to Apache in that they are both good and easy to use technologies that have been superseeded by better ones, like Node.js and NGINX.

Apache and PHP are like an old, good dog that has gammy back legs.

For legacy installations, they might be good to keep to prevent the cost of migration, but not for new stuff.

Fortran's the same. Old dudes might like to stick with it, but anything Fortran can do, R can do better.

apache is the pajeet web server

fuck off soyboy

Apache runs php scripts faster.

[citation needed]

Literally my setup

Sidetrack: do you like to say engine-ex or en-jinx? I have worked professionally with both and although I think engine-ex is the """proper""" way to say it, I don't think the other option is terrible. I have always said whatever the person I'm talking to says.

Compared to php-fpm? where are your stats?

What the fuck is your problem? Nginx configuration is far simpler than Apache.

literally the most generic setup
also sql isn't even specified

I don't have any but I can pretty much guarantee that it is.

I hope you don't use SSL then...

This will never take off.

I only run rutorrent and the apcupsd web monitoring shit, I use nginx since I found its config to be more palatable.

Don't hassle people like that. Anything's easier if you're more familar with it than the alternative.

Apache/PHP devs can learn new stuff and aren't the enemy. Those are the Java/C# pejeets.

My line manager was a PHP dev in a previous job, and he learned to love Node/Nginx.

It should be the responsibility of junior devs to help the old guys not get stuck in their ways. Eventually Node and Nginx will be superseeded also. Then how will you feel to have to keep up with the new guys?

Something wrong with certbot?

It's nearly the same as it is on Apache, don't lie.

google BREACH / CRIME vulns. CRIME is mitigated by browsers, BREACH is not.

I very much doubt it.

I've worked quite a bit with both. Apache is a lot easier to build an unmaintainable mess in, and a lot harder to prove secure. And if you're not learning new shit every week and constantly experimenting in this field then you'll get left behind fairly quickly.

Agreed. But having to let go of hard won knowledge can be tough for people. After a while you just want an easy life and not have to learn anything new.

You have more energy when you're young.

Just to be more specific, I was referring to gzip compression. Certbot is fine, although they like to break things (I had a certbot instance working just fine on Gentoo until my cron broke because apparently gentoo users had to add a new flag to run certbot even though it worked just fine) and apparently there are million ways to download certbot (git clone, pip install) but pretty much most of them are broken in one way or another.

>inducing the browser to make multiple carefully crafted web connections to the target site
Good thing this has nothing to do with Let's Encrypt.

lel I literally set up lets encrypt with nginx in 5 minutes

read

I don't use gentoo, and I'm not even sure about compression.
I don't think someone would take the time to brute force connections to a personal server though.

That was just an example of why I'm not a huge fan of certbot. It's not a thing you want breaking because of updates, but they release broken stuff anyway. Everyone's experience might vary, of course.
As for compression - yeah, sure, for personal servers nobody gives a fuck, but if you ever need to set up a commercial server or helping someone else set up their server, it's better to be aware of these things.

No it doesn't.

Or you can just use nginx with php.

Certbot is a maintenance nightmare. It's less stressful to just buy a damn cert for the dirt cheap rates they go for these days.

>Comparing XAMPP with nginx
XAMPP is a fucking *AMP stack rolled into a simple install, retard. Trying to compare XAMPP with nginx is like trying to compare a car wheel to another car.

>imagine being this brainless
ouch

But then you have to figure out how to get your config to use the cert properly, while certbot just does it all for you.

Which is basic configuration a monkey could figure given one search for "certificate install "my favorite webserver". Then you mark your calendar for a year or two for renewal. With certbot you get up and running fast, but invariably it will break on you down the line.