I would like to see this with the worker mpm on.
Apache 2.4 Faster Than Nginx?
11–20 of 44 posts
Re: Apache 2.4 Faster Than Nginx?
#12Benchmarking over loopback on your laptop is like the #1 benchmarking anti-pattern. It is, at best, accurate to within an order of magnitude.
Re: Apache 2.4 Faster Than Nginx?
#13People use Apache for its modules, and because it's nicely integrated with Wordpress (and there's probably other similar reasons). People use nginx because it's easy to configure, and plays nice with async backends (and there's probably other similar reasons).
No-one (who can't afford to do their own testing) picks a webserver purely for speed.
Re: Apache 2.4 Faster Than Nginx?
#14This benchmark was useless.
What's important to realize about Apache 2.4 is it's probably the first version that's really C10K ready and that's a great milestone since it maintains httpd.conf and .htaccess compatibility.
Re: Apache 2.4 Faster Than Nginx?
#15"lies, damned lies and benchmarks" springs to mind.
my apache is not your apache etc.
Re: Apache 2.4 Faster Than Nginx?
#16The article fails to live up to the expectation set by the headline. First, it's just a simple experiment, which the author later found to lead to the wrong conclusion. Second, it in order for it to really be about Apache 2.4, it would need to contain an earlier version (most certainly Apache 2.2) as a control. Otherwise it's just about the current stable versions of Apache and nginx.
Another problem is that the author just went with the slug WordPress proposed, which doesn't contain the question mark. This could be an oversight, but to any linkbaiters who use this tactic: I'm on to you!
Re: Apache 2.4 Faster Than Nginx?
#17People use Apache for its modules, and because it's nicely integrated with Wordpress (and there's probably other similar reasons). People use nginx because it's easy to configure, and plays nice with async backends (and there's probably other similar reasons). No-one (who can't afford to do their own testing) picks a webserver purely for speed.
Actually, we use nginx for its modules. Or rather, openresty, since they are kind enough to compile them all in.
Re: Apache 2.4 Faster Than Nginx?
#18Note in captions: (static file).
He might as well have benchmarked Apache against an FTP server.
Hitting the same HTML page/file over and over is not realistic. There is so much more to a web-server than this.
What you absolutely must do is benchmark a dynamic PHP-driven, with MySQL access, website. Because that's what Apache is mostly used for (rarely for file serving).
And I don't mean the first page only. But the entire website using a stress profile that mimics real world usage (including writing to the database).
Then you'll get results that mean something.
As it is right now, this test has only proven that Nginx can handle more concurrent requests for a single static file vs. Apache 2.4 (which is something we all already know to be true).
Re: Apache 2.4 Faster Than Nginx?
#19Note in captions: (static file) . He might as well have benchmarked Apache against an FTP server. Hitting the same HTML page/file over and over is not realistic. There is so much more to a web-server than this. What you absolutely must do is benchmark a dynamic PHP-driven, with MySQL access, website. Because that's what Apache is mostly used for (rarely for file serving). And I don't mean the first page only. But the…
This. Good grief, what a leap of logic this entire benchmark is.
Re: Apache 2.4 Faster Than Nginx?
#20Note in captions: (static file) . He might as well have benchmarked Apache against an FTP server. Hitting the same HTML page/file over and over is not realistic. There is so much more to a web-server than this. What you absolutely must do is benchmark a dynamic PHP-driven, with MySQL access, website. Because that's what Apache is mostly used for (rarely for file serving). And I don't mean the first page only. But the…
Good point, but I don't think people only ever use Apache for PHP and MySQL.