I have TWO below simple scenarios to choose which are making me hard to decide:
Scenario (1)
Load-balancer: nginx (On 1 separated Machine)
Web Servers: Apache (On multiple separated Machine)
Scenario (2)
Load-balancer: Apache (On 1 separated Machine)
Web Servers: Apache (On multiple separated Machine)
** Lets say i only have nginx OR Apache only two as the choices. (No Varnish, etc)
** Then obviously my question there are:
Which one is better to load balance the multiple Apache Web Servers?
For the Load-balancer, is NGINX still better then Apache (even for the Apache Web Servers below)?
Please kindly help me be adviced.
Thank you.
This is kinda a 'what is better' kind of question, which are frowned upon over here. check the don't ask page.
I'll tell you one simple thing which is obviously only my personal opinion, nginx is basically a proxy server, so it's built to do this kind of stuff, and it's lighter, so I would recommend nginx as a load balancer instead of apache.
Related
I have a nodeJS web application with Express running on a Digital Ocean droplet.The nodeJs application provides back-end API's. I have two react front-ends that utilise the API's with different domains. The front-ends can be hosted on the same server, but my developer tells me I should use another server to host the front-ends, such as cloudflare.
I have read that nginX can enable hosting multiple sites on the same server (i.e. host my front-ends on same server) but unsure if this is good practice as I then may not be able to use cloudflare.
In terms of security could someone tell me If I need nginx, and my options please?
Thanks
This is a way too open-ended question but I will try to answer it:
In terms of security could someone tell me If I need nginx, and my
options please?
You will need Nginx (or Apache) on any scenario. With one server or multiple. Using Express or not. Express is only an application framework to build routes. But you still need a service that will respond to network requests. This is what Nginx and Apache do. You could avoid using Nginx but then your users would have to make the request directly to the port where you started Express. For example: http://my-site.com:3000/welcome. In terms of security you would better hide the port number and use a Nginx's reverse proxy so that your users will only need to go to http://my-site.com/welcome.
my developer tells me I should use another server to host the
front-ends, such as cloudflare
Cloudflare does not offer hosting services as far as I know. It does offer CDN to host a few files but not a full site. You would need another Digial Ocean instance to do so. In a Cloudflare's forum post I found: "Cloudflare is not a host. Cloudflare’s basic service is a DNS provider, where you simply point to your existing host.".
I have read that nginX can enable hosting multiple sites on the same
server
Yes, Nginx (and Apache too) can host multiple sites. With different names or the same. As domains (www.my-backend.com, www.my-frontend.com) or subdomains (www.backend.my-site.com, www.my-site.com) in the same server.
... but unsure if this is good practice
Besides if it is a good or bad practice, I think it is very common. A few valid reasons to keep them in separated servers would be:
Because you want that if the front-end fails the back-end API continues to work.
Because you want to balance network traffic.
Because you want to keep them separated.
It is definitively not a bad practice if both applications are highly related.
I would like to setup mod_security as a stand alone instance protecting Tomcat instances against web application attacks. Would anyone know the pros and cons of doing this via installing mod_security as an Apache module versus installing mod_security on a reverse proxy? Has anyone implemented mod_security in either of these fashions? And if so is one preferred over the other?
There's really no difference in your two options. What non reverse proxy would you install the module on to protect Tomcat?
The question doesn't really make sense as they are both the same to you.
If you already have an Apache server, then you install ModSecurity in one of two ways:
In embedded mode by installing ModSecurity as module in the existing Apache instance you already have. The advantages are that you won't have to set up a separate Apache instance, and that the ModSecurity will have access to the environment that Apache runs under (so can see environment variables for example or log to same log files).
In a reverse proxy mode. This involves setting up a separate Apache instance, with ModSecurity on it only, and funnel all requests through it, before sending on the requests to your normal Apache. The advantages here are a dedicated web server just for ModSecurity, so you will not share resources with your existing version of Apache, if it is already resource hungry. Disadvantages are that it doubles your infrastructure and the complications that brings.
Personally I prefer option 1.
However, as you want to set up a dedicated web server in front of TomCat, the two options are identical for you. The new instance of Apache (or Nginx) that you set up will be running it in embedded mode and will act as a reverse proxy to your Tomcat server.
Personally I always think it's best to run a dedicated web server like Apache in front of any app server like Tomcat - especially on a public facing website. Granted Tomcat does include a pretty good web server (called Coyote), which may serve most of your web server needs, but a dedicated web server like Apache is more geared towards serving static content and contains other features for performance and security which make it a better end point server (including the ability to run ModSecurity for example!).
And just in case there is any confusion, Apache is actually short for Apache HTTP Server, and is sometimes called Apache httpd after the process that it runs. It is Apache's most popular bit of software hence why the name gets shortened, but Apache actually have lots of bits of software (including Apache Tomcat - usually shortened just to Tomcat).
If my site is used by many users, it becomes slow. How do I make my site to use two or more PCs?
Usually httpd is not aware of any load balancing in front of it. Check out things like LVS (linux virtual server) or haproxy or even nginx for examples of things you can put in front of httpd to scale it horizontally.
We use Apache with Nginx(as reverse proxy) for more concurrency level because of the way that Nginx handles static contents and use fewer connections something that Apache lacks.
The question now is that is there any difference between the above scenario and using another server for serving static content (css,js,images,etc) with nginX and your primary server with Apache installed?
In my project there are millions of user with avatar,banner and ofcourse photo gallery. Project is nearly ready, and I want to make sure I'm on the right direction. Which scenario is the best?
EDIT:
What would happen if slow clients cause Apache to keep threads busy for longer than needed in the primary server?
One of the main purposes of nginx behind Apache is to handle slow clients to ensure that Apache doesn't have to keep its threads busy for this.
btw, I think it's relevant to the topic http://www.aosabook.org/en/nginx.html
I have been looking around to figure out how to configure Glassfish front ended with Apache. And most of the tutorials using the load balancing plug in is making me enable SSL on Apache. I am trying to understand the connection. I should be able to do non SSL communications when I dont have a need for SSL.
There are several blog posts showing how you can use Apache in front of Glassfish. There are several options and depending on your needs, different strategies might be the most appropriate.
I've used Apache with mod_jk which forwards requests to Glassfish - both https and regular http. Lots of good references here.
It's possible to use other modules in Apache also like mod_proxy, but again the requirements you have will flesh out the most appropriate.
Glassfish also have pretty good http engine inside of it where you can configure virtual hosts like in apache. If the load on the Glassfish server isn't to big, you might consider just using Glassfish without anything in front of it.
You can also use the Sun Java System Web Server SJSWS instead of Apache. Despite it's atrocious name, it is just Sun's web server (free to use). It can be used as a reverse proxy (PDF). The SJWS/Glassfish combination is presumably tested really well by Sun.