Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Apache HTTP Server vs Undertow: What are the differences?
Introduction:
Apache HTTP Server and Undertow are both web servers that serve as the backbone for hosting websites. However, they differ in various aspects that cater to different needs and preferences.
1. Performance: Apache HTTP Server is known for its stability and reliability, making it a popular choice for traditional web applications. On the other hand, Undertow is focused on performance and scalability, making it a preferred option for modern, high-performance applications that require low-latency responses.
2. Memory Usage: Undertow has a smaller memory footprint compared to Apache HTTP Server, making it more suitable for resource-constrained environments or microservices where efficient memory usage is crucial.
3. Configuration: Apache HTTP Server has a complex configuration system with numerous directives and modules, allowing for a high level of customization. In contrast, Undertow has a simpler configuration setup, making it easier to set up and manage for beginners or projects with straightforward requirements.
4. Embedded Capabilities: Undertow is designed to be embedded within Java applications, providing seamless integration with Java frameworks and applications. Apache HTTP Server, on the other hand, is typically used as a standalone server and may require additional configurations for embedding.
5. Community Support: Apache HTTP Server has a large and active community with extensive documentation, plugins, and support resources available. Undertow, although gaining popularity, may have a smaller community and fewer resources in comparison.
6. Architecture: Apache HTTP Server uses a multi-process, multi-threaded architecture, which can handle a high volume of requests but may consume more resources. Undertow, with its non-blocking I/O architecture, is more efficient in handling concurrent connections and is better suited for handling modern web applications with high throughput requirements.
In Summary, Apache HTTP Server and Undertow differ in terms of performance, memory usage, configuration, embedded capabilities, community support, and architecture, catering to different needs in the realm of web hosting and application development.
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
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 Apache HTTP Server
- Web server479
- Most widely-used web server305
- Virtual hosting217
- Fast148
- Ssl support138
- Since 199644
- Asynchronous28
- Robust5
- Proven over many years4
- Mature2
- Perfomance2
- Perfect Support1
- Many available modules0
- Many available modules0
Pros of Undertow
- Performance4
- Lower footprint1
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Apache HTTP Server
- Hard to set up4
Cons of Undertow
- Smaller community1
- Less known1
