Slashdot Mirror
Apache 2.4 Takes Direct Aim At Nginx
darthcamaro writes "The world's most popular web server is out with a major new release today that has one key goal — deliver more performance than ever before. Improved caching, proxy modules as well as new session control are also key highlights of the release. 'We also show that as far as true performance is based — real-world performance as seen by the end-user- 2.4 is as fast, and even faster than some of the servers who may be "better" known as being "fast", like nginx,' Jim Jagielski, ASF President and Apache HTTP Server Project Management Committee, told InternetNews.com." Here's list of new features in 2.4.
So, your claim is that software can never improve?
I struggled with Apache 2 for at least 4 years before switching to NginX. It was the best thing I ever did.
Quick translation into English: 'I am too clueless to run a webserver, but wish to get First Post'.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Quick translation into English: "I like my sendmail-esque configuration just fine. It's job security."
From reading your post, it seems that the biggest cause is people trying to run web servers who don't know how to and probably shouldn't be.
IANA web admin, but from what I have learned from playing around with both Apache and Nginx is that they serve different markets.
Nginx is a small, fast, reliable web server that is great for virtual machines, home users, newbies (like me), etc. It is simple and "just works" because it make sense. Nginx is the Ubuntu/Mint of the web server world.
Apache is a massive, feature rich, highly tunable, beast that can inter-operate with everything. This is an enterprise class (or at least very serious workload) web server. Designed by people who know what they are doing for people who know what they are doing. Apache is the Slackware/Gentoo of the web server world.
If you need a web server to get a job done, use Nginx. If the web server is your job then Apache. The key is how much time you have to spend figuring out how to customize Apache just right vs. how much those customizations are worth.
If you're running your own machines, maxing out the RAM makes sense. It's a one time cost and the ongoing cost to power and cool the added memory is negligible next to the rest of your budget.
But if you're renting capacity from a virtual hosting provider, adding more RAM sends your monthly costs through the roof. Since tens of thousands of little websites run in that type of environment, it's a serious problem for a lot of low and lower-middle tier companies. I'm starting to think cloud hosting for small companies only makes sense financially if they write all their server code in C and C++. (Scary)
I don't think it really matters what Apache makes the defaults, as long as there's plentiful, clear documentation on what the configuration parameters mean and how to make an educated guess as to what values you should set for your own deployment.
+1. Really, it's not even about performance or that Apache guys are bad at software. Far from it. The real crux is that Apache has become the Kitchen Sink of webservers. It can do *anything*, and there's always a complexity cost for that. Nginx can't do everything, but it's a really efficient and minimalist implementation of what 97% of modern deployments actually need, and none of the things they don't.
In some meta-sense, all software goes through this cycle: You're the best, everyone uses you, everyone files niche feature requests, you actually implement all of the niche features, and next thing you know 10 years later you're the Kitchen Sink implementation of domain X, and someone comes along and throws out all the irrelevant bullshit and makes a leaner implementation of just what matters *today*.
IMHO, the answer is that dropping features needs to be as easy as adding them. Too many software projects/architects have an easy-in, hard-out policy on features. "We can't drop feature X, it's been there for years and some crazy people in siberia still use it". It's ok to drop features on major-cycle releases. Perhaps even necessary for long-term project health.
I definitely don't want to hire someone that has trouble using something as simple as Apache.
Holy crap, do you even use Apache? At my job, I get to roll my own from source and I own every line of httpd.conf and each of our vhosts.
Simple is not the word I would use to describe it. "Specialized" is much more like it.
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
I think that may speak more about the sort of jobs you get hired for and the people you work with, rather than Apache itself.
The Apache configuration layout that Debian uses combined with Puppet or Chef is goodness.
No, nginx is slower when talking to Apache Tomcat than Apache server is, check your mouth at the door.
You can't handle the truth.
What makes you think that extremely complex piece of software is supposed to be easy to setup, by just about everyone?
What makes you think everyone needs an extremely complex piece of software when their needs are often quite simple?
Apache is big and complex, nginx is small and simpler. Often one works better than the other for a particular person's needs. If someone finds Apache difficult to set up and finds nginx to be easier, then telling him to get someone to set up Apache is not the answer since he already already has the answer he is looking for. If Apache wants to be that answer too, then they need to find a way to simplify configuration.