Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Cowboy vs Puma vs nginx: What are the differences?
Introduction
In the realm of web servers, Cowboy, Puma, and Nginx are popular choices, each with its own unique strengths and capabilities. Understanding the key differences between them can help in choosing the most suitable option for specific use cases.
Concurrency Handling: Cowboy and Puma are both known for their robust concurrency handling capabilities, allowing them to efficiently serve multiple client requests simultaneously. Nginx, on the other hand, primarily excels in serving static files and proxying requests to various backends, making it a better choice for high-traffic websites with diverse content types.
Programming Language: Cowboy is written in Erlang, a language known for its fault-tolerant and highly scalable nature, making it ideal for building distributed systems. Puma is written in Ruby, known for its simplicity and ease of use, making it a preferred choice for Ruby-based applications. Nginx, being written in C, offers superior performance and efficiency, especially in handling complex tasks and high volumes of traffic.
Load Balancing: Nginx is renowned for its advanced load balancing capabilities, allowing it to distribute incoming traffic across multiple servers efficiently. Cowboy and Puma, while capable of handling concurrent requests, may require additional configurations or components to achieve similar load-balancing functionality.
Configuration Flexibility: Nginx is highly praised for its flexible and easy-to-configure setup, making it a popular choice for both beginners and experienced users. Cowboy and Puma, though powerful in their own right, may have a steeper learning curve when it comes to configuration and customization, especially for users unfamiliar with Erlang or Ruby environments.
Resource Utilization: Nginx is known for its efficient use of system resources, making it a preferred choice for optimizing server performance and handling high traffic loads. Cowboy and Puma, while proficient in handling concurrent connections, may require more resources to achieve similar levels of performance, especially in resource-constrained environments.
Community Support: Nginx boasts a large and active community of developers and users, providing a wealth of resources, plugins, and support options for troubleshooting and extending its functionality. Cowboy and Puma, while supported by dedicated developer communities, may not have the same breadth of resources and third-party integrations available for Nginx.
In Summary, understanding the key differences between Cowboy, Puma, and Nginx in terms of concurrency handling, programming language, load balancing, configuration flexibility, resource utilization, and community support can help in selecting the most suitable web server for specific use cases.
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.
Pros of Cowboy
- Websockets integration8
- Cool name6
- Good to use with Erlang3
- Anime mascot2
Pros of NGINX
- High-performance http server1.4K
- Performance893
- Easy to configure730
- Open source607
- Load balancer530
- Free288
- Scalability288
- Web server225
- 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
- Reversy Proxy3
- Streaming media delivery3
- Streaming media3
- Embedded Lua scripting3
- GRPC-Web2
- Blash2
- 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
Pros of Puma
- Free4
- Convenient3
- Easy3
- Multithreaded2
- Consumes less memory than Unicorn2
- Default Rails server2
- First-class support for WebSockets2
- Lightweight1
- Fast1
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Cowboy
Cons of NGINX
- Advanced features require subscription10
Cons of Puma
- Uses `select` (limited client count)0
Sign up to add or upvote consMake informed product decisions
What is Cowboy?
What is NGINX?
What is Puma?
Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
What companies use Cowboy?
What companies use Puma?
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
What tools integrate with Cowboy?
What tools integrate with Puma?
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions
Blog Posts
+12
+17
+22
+31+46+15+39
+6