11–20 of 76 posts
i note postfix usurped sendmail much faster.
Couldn't these results be skewed because Nginx is often used as a reverse proxy? If there is Apache or something custom behind Nginx it will show up as Nginx I guess. I do not see this issue adressed and it might cause significant skew if you look at the top websites (since they will more often deploy these kinds of tricks)
Good point, or perhaps more used as the LB? We prefer Varnish as the reverse proxy, but we are using nginx as load balancer, which still shows up as the server in the response header, even though we exclusively run apache on the back-ends to serve the PHP application. I am not sure how typical this setup is though.
Any opinions on Nginx being more difficult to setup/run than Apache? I'm considering switching, but I really have enough overhead to deal with!
For popular CMS applications you can normally find some helpful .conf file to get you started.
You will also need to setup php-fpm if you are running a PHP flavoured 'LAMP' stack.
I know this is off-topic but I'm also surprised by Google Server's popularity. Can 10% of the top 1000 web-sites really be serviced by Google? You've got to pay for the reports, but I wonder if people using Google's CDN for static assets could be skewing those results. Does anyone have insight into the methodology used to collect this data?
I know this is off-topic but I'm also surprised by Google Server's popularity. Can 10% of the top 1000 web-sites really be serviced by Google? You've got to pay for the reports, but I wonder if people using Google's CDN for static assets could be skewing those results. Does anyone have insight into the methodology used to collect this data?
If we consider a separate www.google.x for each country then we would get to around 100 very quickly, I guess.
The remainder would be filled by youtube, gmail, etc...
Any opinions on Nginx being more difficult to setup/run than Apache? I'm considering switching, but I really have enough overhead to deal with!
Just give it a go. Remember you can set it up to run on another port, e.g. 81, 8080 etc. so you can get it working whilst still having Apache up and running on your site. For popular CMS applications you can normally find some helpful .conf file to get you started. You will also need to setup php-fpm if you are running a PHP flavoured 'LAMP' stack.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good point, or perhaps more used as the LB? We prefer Varnish as the reverse proxy, but we are using nginx as load balancer, which still shows up as the server in the response header, even though we exclusively run apache on the back-ends to serve the PHP application. I am not sure how typical this setup is though.
Unfortunately too typical. You're keeping all the performance issues with a LA P stack (high resource-use variance going from low to high traffic), and merely adding layers in front. Unless you need an apachehttpd-specific feature, you should look into moving to a nginx + php-fpm setup.
Any opinions on Nginx being more difficult to setup/run than Apache? I'm considering switching, but I really have enough overhead to deal with!