Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Apache Tomcat vs Puma vs nginx: What are the differences?
Server Type: Apache Tomcat is a pure Java HTTP server that is designed for Java servlets and JSP. Puma is a Ruby Rack web server for applications built using the Ruby programming language. Nginx is a high-performance web server known for its efficiency in serving static content.
Concurrency Model: Apache Tomcat traditionally uses a thread per request model, which can be resource-intensive. Puma employs a hybrid concurrency model with a combination of thread pools and processes. Nginx uses an event-driven architecture that allows it to handle multiple connections efficiently.
Language Support: Apache Tomcat primarily supports Java-based applications. Puma is specifically designed for Ruby applications. In contrast, Nginx can be used to serve a wide range of web applications regardless of the programming language.
Configurability: Apache Tomcat offers extensive configuration options through XML files. Puma's configuration is typically done through Ruby code, allowing for more dynamic adjustments. Nginx provides a powerful configuration language that allows for fine-tuning of its web server capabilities.
Performance: Apache Tomcat is known for its stable performance and is widely used for Java-based applications. Puma is optimized for Ruby applications and can handle high concurrency effectively. Nginx excels in serving static content quickly and efficiently, making it a popular choice for high traffic websites.
Use Cases: Apache Tomcat is commonly used for hosting Java web applications, including enterprise-level applications. Puma is favored for Ruby on Rails applications. Nginx is often used as a reverse proxy, load balancer, or as a front-end server due to its speed and resource-efficient nature.
In Summary, Apache Tomcat, Puma, and Nginx differ in server type, concurrency model, language support, configurability, performance, and 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.
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 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
Pros of Apache Tomcat
- Easy79
- Java72
- Popular49
- Spring web1
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of NGINX
- Advanced features require subscription10
Cons of Puma
- Uses `select` (limited client count)0
Cons of Apache Tomcat
- Blocking - each http request block a thread2
- Easy to set up1
Sign up to add or upvote consMake informed product decisions
What is NGINX?
What is Puma?
What is Apache Tomcat?
Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
What companies use Puma?
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
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