Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We Should Ditch Nginx

hipyoungstartup.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 176 posts

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#91

Post by mkesper »

danenania wrote: post #65

Why is this getting upvoted? We should ditch Nginx because they are trying to build a sustainable business on top of their amazing OSS contribution? When quality OSS projects like Nginx turn into profitable businesses, that's very good for OSS as a whole. We should be cheering them and gasp paying them if we need their high end features, not abandoning them.

This is "open core" model and it won't fly (and that's a good thing).

They want to compete with an established, mature free software project. You can only do so successfully in the long run if you stay 100% free(dom) software. Why don't they sell real adaptations (not basic features they actively deny) + support?

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#93

Post by jacques_chester »

jesalas wrote: post #90
icambron wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. From the article: >I don’t blame NGINX for wanting money in exchange for what is admittedly amazing software. I just don’t want any part of it. Why not? You're using this awesome software whose value you appreciate and which is, you admit, open source. It's just not convenient enough for you. So why can't you pony up the money for your huge, high-traffic website?

It's pretty simple actually: We don't have an HTTP server software budget. The expectation is that the tech team will choose the right tools for the job and ask for paid tools when we need them (eg. New Relic). NGINX doesn't differentiate enough from the other HTTP servers out there to justify the cost.

> NGINX doesn't differentiate enough from the other HTTP servers out there to justify the cost.

Then why the angst? This just makes me more confused about what your argument is.

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#94

Post by ternaryoperator »

jesalas wrote: post #90
icambron wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. From the article: >I don’t blame NGINX for wanting money in exchange for what is admittedly amazing software. I just don’t want any part of it. Why not? You're using this awesome software whose value you appreciate and which is, you admit, open source. It's just not convenient enough for you. So why can't you pony up the money for your huge, high-traffic website?

It's pretty simple actually: We don't have an HTTP server software budget. The expectation is that the tech team will choose the right tools for the job and ask for paid tools when we need them (eg. New Relic). NGINX doesn't differentiate enough from the other HTTP servers out there to justify the cost.

>NGINX doesn't differentiate enough from the other HTTP servers out there to justify the cost.

From the post:

>admittedly amazing software

It sounds, honestly, like you're never going to pay for OSS. That's fine if that's the way you want to do things, but to then write a post entitled "We should ditch NGINX" seems way over the top.

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#95

Post by jesalas »

ternaryoperator wrote: post #94
jesalas wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty simple actually: We don't have an HTTP server software budget. The expectation is that the tech team will choose the right tools for the job and ask for paid tools when we need them (eg. New Relic). NGINX doesn't differentiate enough from the other HTTP servers out there to justify the cost.

>NGINX doesn't differentiate enough from the other HTTP servers out there to justify the cost. From the post: >admittedly amazing software It sounds, honestly, like you're never going to pay for OSS. That's fine if that's the way you want to do things, but to then write a post entitled "We should ditch NGINX" seems way over the top.

Why's it over the top for my company to ditch NGINX because it's missing a feature that Apache httpd provides?

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#96

Post by smsm42 »

venus wrote: post #52
jacques_chester wrote: post #23

This blog post demonstrates why the syslog feature is ideal for segmenting Nginx's market. Almost nobody cares about it, except the sort of place doing > tens of millions of requests per day. The sort of place that might have some money and the scale to realise that a few thousand bucks is cheaper than a bunch of engineer time. It's a good case study in smart pricing.

"NGINX Plus Standard" costs $1,350 annual subscription per server. It sounds like this company has a pretty strange setup, running "hundreds of VMs", presumably all running nginx, and it's the combined impact of those VM logging writes that are so burdening the NetApp devices. In this case, if they kept the same setup, I can see that it would be prohibitively expensive to pay for nginx plus on every single one of tho…

At these volumes, nobody really would multiply one server price tag per amount of VMs. That's when people negotiate. So 135k price tag is probably purely imagined.

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#97

Post by CornishPasty »

jesalas wrote: post #90
icambron wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. From the article: >I don’t blame NGINX for wanting money in exchange for what is admittedly amazing software. I just don’t want any part of it. Why not? You're using this awesome software whose value you appreciate and which is, you admit, open source. It's just not convenient enough for you. So why can't you pony up the money for your huge, high-traffic website?

It's pretty simple actually: We don't have an HTTP server software budget. The expectation is that the tech team will choose the right tools for the job and ask for paid tools when we need them (eg. New Relic). NGINX doesn't differentiate enough from the other HTTP servers out there to justify the cost.

> NGINX doesn't differentiate enough from the other HTTP servers out there to justify the cost.

So use Apache or any other HTTPD. Problem solved.

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#98

Post by nso »

It's never "impossible" to avoid disk writes. I'm assuming it's running on Linux, and in that case you could simply log to a shm mount. Since Linux is file-based, it really doesn't care what medium it stores the file on.

Ofc. you'll have to handle a couple of potential pitfalls, like running out of shm, but I think this should be much easier than ditching nginx altogether. Linux was made for hacking, so hack away.

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#99

Post by justincormack »

dknecht wrote: post #37

CloudFlare generates 50gb/s of logs globally and have handled collecting this volume in two ways. Historically the logs are sent to a local syslog-ng through the use of a PIPE and the forwarded to central logger. This can be done with nginx with no patches by just treating the PIPE as file. Just make sure you do a little buffering inside nginx. access_log /dev/nginx_access log_format_name buffer=64k flush=10s; Since…

yes Openresty is the big part of the Nginx ecosystem that is outside the Nginx company and provides a completely different way of adding features.

Re: We Should Ditch Nginx

#100

Post by _ikke_ »

jesalas wrote: post #95
ternaryoperator wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>NGINX doesn't differentiate enough from the other HTTP servers out there to justify the cost. From the post: >admittedly amazing software It sounds, honestly, like you're never going to pay for OSS. That's fine if that's the way you want to do things, but to then write a post entitled "We should ditch NGINX" seems way over the top.

Why's it over the top for my company to ditch NGINX because it's missing a feature that Apache httpd provides?

Because you suggest everyone else should too.
Post reply on HN