Nginx vs Apache performance

Re:Nginx vs Apache performance by furburger on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @01:42AM (#519463)

apache is perfectly capable of saturating the outbound connection on static content on any reasonable setup. you may save a little on memory with nginx but you aren't saving on speed (how can you deliver more content than the outbound connection can carry??). this is why the in-kernel http servers went nowhere. in any case most people use CDNs these days for static content.

note that by not using apache you give up a lot of security hardening, add-on-modules, and mindshare that nginx does not have.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Nginx vs Apache performance by sunkencity on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @05:18AM (#519635)

For a very tight virtual server config I can see the use for nginx, but for a normal server, running just apache, memory is not going to be an issue. There are probably other limits that will affect performance, such as the connection just as you say.

For example I tried running a server with apache + passenger on an ec2 node, bumped up the MaxClients to 1024. I evened out at around 400 simulaneous connections. Maybe it was due to some mysql limit or limits from the placed I sent the load from, but I was consuming around 50% cpu, so there seemed to be some other thing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Nginx vs Apache performance by blasdel on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @04:30AM (#519611)

No, in-kernel http servers went nowhere because of sendfile(2)

[ Parent | on HN ]