Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Apache HTTP Server vs Cherokee vs nginx: What are the differences?
Introduction:
Apache HTTP Server, Cherokee, and Nginx are all popular web servers used to serve static and dynamic content over the internet. While they perform similar functions, there are key differences that differentiate them from each other.
Configuration Files: Apache HTTP Server uses a single monolithic configuration file (httpd.conf) which can become complex and difficult to manage, while Cherokee uses an XML-based configuration file that is more structured and easier to understand. Nginx follows a modular approach with separate configuration files for different aspects like server blocks, upstream servers, and locations, making it more flexible and scalable.
Resource Usage: Nginx is known for its low resource usage and high performance, making it a preferred choice for high-traffic websites or applications. Cherokee also has a reputation for being lightweight, using architecture designed for high efficiency. On the other hand, Apache HTTP Server may consume more resources due to its process-based architecture.
Module Support: Apache HTTP Server has a vast library of modules available for various functionalities, while Nginx has a more limited set of modules but focuses on performance-critical features. Cherokee also has a range of modules but may not have the extensive support and community that Apache enjoys.
Reverse Proxy Capabilities: Nginx is widely recognized for its reverse proxy capabilities and is often used in front of application servers to improve performance and handle incoming requests. Apache HTTP Server and Cherokee also have reverse proxy features, but Nginx is considered to excel in this area due to its high concurrency and low memory usage.
Ease of Scalability: Nginx is built with scalability in mind, allowing it to effectively handle a large number of concurrent connections with minimal resources. Apache HTTP Server and Cherokee can also scale, but may require more configuration and fine-tuning to achieve similar levels of performance under high loads.
Community Support: Apache HTTP Server has a large and active community with a wealth of documentation, tutorials, and forums for support. Nginx also has a strong community backing with frequent updates and enhancements. Cherokee, while having a smaller user base, still offers community support through forums and documentation.
In Summary, Apache HTTP Server, Cherokee, and Nginx each have their unique strengths in terms of configuration, resource usage, module support, reverse proxy capabilities, scalability, and community support.
I am diving into web development, both front and back end. I feel comfortable with administration, scripting and moderate coding in bash, Python and C++, but I am also a Windows fan (i love inner conflict). What are the votes on web servers? IIS is expensive and restrictive (has Windows adoption of open source changed this?) Apache has the history but seems to be at the root of most of my Infosec issues, and I know nothing about nginx (is it too new to rely on?). And no, I don't know what I want to do on the web explicitly, but hosting and data storage (both cloud and tape) are possibilities. Ready, aim fire!
I would pick nginx over both IIS and Apace HTTP Server any day. Combine it with docker, and as you grow maybe even traefik, and you'll have a really flexible solution for serving http content where you can take sites and projects up and down without effort, easily move it between systems and dont have to handle any dependencies on your actual local machine.
From a StackShare Community member: "We are a LAMP shop currently focused on improving web performance for our customers. We have made many front-end optimizations and now we are considering replacing Apache with nginx. I was wondering if others saw a noticeable performance gain or any other benefits by switching."
I use nginx because it is very light weight. Where Apache tries to include everything in the web server, nginx opts to have external programs/facilities take care of that so the web server can focus on efficiently serving web pages. While this can seem inefficient, it limits the number of new bugs found in the web server, which is the element that faces the client most directly.
I use nginx because its more flexible and easy to configure
I use Apache HTTP Server because it's intuitive, comprehensive, well-documented, and just works
For us, NGINX is a lite HTTP server easy to configure. On our research, we found a well-documented software we a lot of support from the community.
We have been using it alongside tools like certbot and it has been a total success.
We can easily configure our sites and have a folder for available vs enabled sites, and with the nginx -t command we can easily check everything is running fine.
- Server rendered HTML output from PHP is being migrated to the client as Vue.js components, future plans to provide additional content, and other new miscellaneous features all result in a substantial increase of static files needing to be served from the server. NGINX has better performance than Apache for serving static content.
- The change to NGINX will require switching from PHP to PHP-FPM resulting in a distributed architecture with a higher complexity configuration, but this is outweighed by PHP-FPM being faster than PHP for processing requests.
- The NGINX + PHP-FPM setup now allows for horizontally scaling of resources rather vertically scaling the previously combined Apache + PHP resources.
- PHP shell tasks can now efficiently be decoupled from the application reducing main application footprint and allow for scaling of tasks on an individual basis.
I was in a situation where I have to configure 40 RHEL servers 20 each for Apache HTTP Server and Tomcat server. My task was to 1. configure LVM with required logical volumes, format and mount for HTTP and Tomcat servers accordingly. 2. Install apache and tomcat. 3. Generate and apply selfsigned certs to http server. 4. Modify default ports on Tomcat to different ports. 5. Create users on RHEL for application support team. 6. other administrative tasks like, start, stop and restart HTTP and Tomcat services.
I have utilized the power of ansible for all these tasks, which made it easy and manageable.
Pros of Cherokee
- The logo is cute4
Pros of NGINX
- High-performance http server1.4K
- Performance893
- Easy to configure730
- Open source607
- Load balancer530
- Free289
- Scalability288
- Web server226
- Simplicity175
- Easy setup136
- Content caching30
- Web Accelerator21
- Capability15
- Fast14
- High-latency12
- Predictability12
- Reverse Proxy8
- The best of them7
- Supports http/27
- Great Community5
- Lots of Modules5
- Enterprise version5
- High perfomance proxy server4
- Embedded Lua scripting3
- Streaming media delivery3
- Streaming media3
- Reversy Proxy3
- Blash2
- GRPC-Web2
- Lightweight2
- Fast and easy to set up2
- Slim2
- saltstack2
- Virtual hosting1
- Narrow focus. Easy to configure. Fast1
- Along with Redis Cache its the Most superior1
- Ingress controller1
Cons of Cherokee
Cons of NGINX
- Advanced features require subscription10
What is Cherokee?
What is NGINX?
Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
What companies use Cherokee?
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
What tools integrate with Cherokee?
Blog Posts
+12
+17
+22
+31+46+15
+6+9