Re:Apache httpd 2.4.26 released
by cookiecaper on Monday June 19, 2017 @01:16PM
(#14588584)
One point against nginx: it's an "open core" product. The free/OSS version lacks features so that Nginx Inc. can sell them to companies.
Which includes super fun stuff like if you're proxying to a back end by name it only resolves the IP on either start-up or first connection (not sure which), unless you specifically add a static DNS resolver IP address and do some variable stuff. When your upstream DNS resolver stuff could change, that tends to mean you need to install DNSMasq and similar locally and point your nginx to it.
Fixed in Plus, not in the open source product.
Re:Apache httpd 2.4.26 released
by davidgerard on Monday June 19, 2017 @02:24PM
(#14589141)
So nobody's fixed this in a fork?
Supporting a fork, or even a patch set, is a lot of work. Especially if you know full well that it's never going to be accepted upstream.
And unless you support it solidly and long-term, nobody would really use it: paid support from Ngnix is much less risk.
There's the tengine fork: http://tengine.taobao.org/ https://github.com/alibaba/tengine
* You are probably not Google and the http/https server is almost certainly not a performance problem worth worrying about.
Pro-Apache:
* Swiss army knife. At my day job we use a pile of Apache modules; if we went nginx we'd have to replace these with a kitchen drawer full of standalone gadgets.
* You know Apache well.
* Lots of LAMP apps pretty much presume Apache (WordPress plugins in particular) and nginx support is a me-too.
Pro-nginx:
* Smaller and cleaner config.
* You know nginx well.
* nginx support is getting better, if you like nginx it's worth checking your prospective application.
Honestly, for almost all use cases it probably doesn't matter which. Pick whatever makes you most effective.