Apache httpd has done me well over the years, just rock solid and highly performant in a legacy custom LAMP stack application I've been maintaining (read: trying to escape from)
My LAMP stack days are now numbered and am moving on to the wonderful world of polyglot:
1) Scala REST framework on Jetty 8 (on the fence between Spray & Scalatra)
2) Load balancer/Static file server: Apache Httpd, Nginx, or ?
3) MySQL via ScalaQuery
4) Client-side: jQuery, Backbone, 320 & up or Twitter Bootstrap
Option #2 is the focus of this question. The benchmarks I have seen indicate that Nginx, Lighthttpd, G-WAN (in particular) and friends blow away Apache in terms of performance, but this blowing away appears to manifest more in high-load scenarios where the web server is handling many simultaneous connections. Given that our server does max 100gb bandwidth per month and average load is around 0.10, the high-load scenario is clearly not at play.
Basically I need the connection to the application server (Jetty) and static file delivery by the web server to be both reliable and fast. Finally, the web server should double duty as a load balancer for the application server (SSL not required, server lives behind an ASA). I am not sure how fast Apache Httpd is compared to the alternatives, but it's proven, road warrior tested software.
So, if I roll with Nginx or other Apache alternative, will there be any difference whatsoever in terms of visible performance? I assume not, but in the interest of achieving near instant page loads, putting the question out there ;-)
if I roll with Nginx or other Apache alternative, will there be any difference whatsoever in terms of visible performance?
Yes, mostly in terms of latency.
According to Google (who might know a thing or tow about latency), latency is important both for the user experience, high search-engine rankings, and to survive high loads (success, script kiddies, real attacks, etc.).
But scaling on multicore and/or using less RAM and CPU resources cannot hurt - and that's the purpose of these Web server alternatives.
The benchmarks I have seen indicate that Nginx, Lighthttpd, G-WAN (in particular) and friends blow away Apache in terms of performance, but this blowing away appears to manifest more in high-load scenarios where the web server is handling many simultaneous connections
The benchmarks show that even at low numbers of clients, some servers are faster than others: here are compared Apache 2.4, Nginx, Lighttpd, Varnish, Litespeed, Cherokee and G-WAN.
Since this test has been made by someone independent from the authors of those servers, these tests (made with virtualization and 1,2,4,8 CPU Cores) have clear value.
There will be a massive difference. Nginx wipes the floor with Apache for anything over zero concurrent users. That's assuming you properly configure everything. Check out the following links for some help diving into it.
http://wiki.nginx.org/Main
http://michael.lustfield.net/content/dummies-guide-nginx
http://blog.martinfjordvald.com/2010/07/nginx-primer/
You'll see improvements in terms of requests/second but you'll also see significantly less RAM and CPU usage. One thing I like is the greater control over what's going on with a more simple configuration.
Apache made a claim that apache 2.4 will offer performance as good or better than nginx. They made a bold claim calling out nginx and when they made that release it kinda bit them in the ass. They're closer, sure, but nginx still wipes the floor in almost every single benchmark.
Related
Pros & cons over Apache or nginx and how they work internally in order to maximize the resource utilization
Can I use Apache & Nginx together ? If I use only Nginx then what problem I can face ?
Apache has some disadvantages, especially when it is used with the PHP module.
Apache's process model is such that each connection uses a separate process. Each process carries all the overhead of PHP and any other modules you may have loaded with it. An Apache process might run a PHP script or serve static content for one request. If the PHP has a memory leak (which does happen sometimes), the process continues to grow in size. Also, when KeepAlive is enabled, which is usually recommended, that process stays alive for a few seconds after the connection, consuming a "slot" that another client might be able to use and helping the server to reach its MaxClients sooner.
Nginx is an alternative webserver that normally uses the Linux "epoll" API to process requests in a non-blocking mode. This means that one single process can handle many simultaneous connections. Epoll is an efficient way to tell the single process which connection(s) it needs to deal with and which can wait. Nginx has a goal of solving the "C10k" problem - how to have 10,000 concurrent connections.
This naturally goes hand in hand with php-fpm, the FastCGI Process Manager. Nginx itself does not have PHP built-in. When it receives a request for a PHP script, it makes a call out to php-fpm to run the script, which then returns the result to nginx, which returns it to the client.
This all uses a lot less memory than a similar Apache+mod_php configuration.
There are a couple more huge advantages of php-fpm over mod_php:
It uses different "pools", each of which can run as a separate Linux user. This provides a simple and effective way of isolating websites (for example, if they are run by different customers who should not read each other's code) without the overhead or nastiness of suexec or suphp.
It has a slow log feature where it can dump a PHP stack trace of any script that has been running for greater than X seconds. This can help diagnose slow code issues.
Php-fpm can be run with Apache, and in fact this allows you to take advantage of Apache's more efficient Worker MPM (or Event in Apache 2.4). However, my experience is that configuring it in Apache is significantly more complex than configuring it in nginx, and even with Worker, it still is not quite as efficient with nginx.
Disadvantages of moving to nginx - not many, but things to keep in mind:
It does not support .htaccess files. I think this is a good thing personally as .htaccess files must be parsed by Apache for every request, which can cause significant overhead.
Configuration files need to be re-written. If you have many complex site configurations, this could take some doing. For simple cases it is not usually a big deal.
Feature Of Nginx
Nginx is fast because it does not need to create a new process for
each new request.
HTTP proxy and Web server features
Ability to handle more than 10,000 simultaneous connections with a
low memory footprint (~2.5 MB per 10k inactive HTTP keep-alive
connections)
Handling of static files, index files, and auto-indexing
Reverse proxy with caching
Load balancing with in-band health checks
Fault tolerance
Nginx uses very little memory, especially for static Web pages..
FastCGI, SCGI, uWSGI support with caching
Name- and IP address-based virtual servers
IPv6-compatible
SPDY protocol support
FLV and MP4 streaming
Web page access authentication
gzip compression and decompression
URL rewriting having its own rewrite engine
Custom logging with on-the-fly gzip compression
Response rate and concurrent requests limiting
Bandwidth throttling
Server Side Includes
IP address-based geolocation
User tracking
WebDAV
XSLT data processing
Embedded Perl scripting
Nginx is highly scalable, and performance is not dependent on
hardware.
With only Nginx, you lose a whole bunch of apache-specific features such as all the mod_dav stuff. You lose a lot of modules, effectively
Conclusion
The best use for nginx is in front of Apache if you need Apache modules. Use it as a load-balancer if you might, between multiple Apache instances, and you suddenly have a mixed set-up that is rather
Both nginx and Node.js have event loops to handle requests. I put nginx in front of Node.js as has been recommended here
Using Node.js only vs. using Node.js with Apache/Nginx
with the setup shown here
Node.js + Nginx - What now?
How do the two event loops play together? Is there any risk of conflicts between the two? I wonder because Nginx may not be able to handle as many events per second as Node.js or vice versa. For example, if Nginx can handle 1000 events per second but node.js only 500, won't that cause issues? (I have no idea if 1000,500 are reasonable orders of magnitude, you could correct me on that.)
What about putting Apache in front of Node.js? Apache has no event loop. Just threads. So won't putting Apache in front of Node.js defeat the purpose?
In this 2010 talk, Node.js creator Ryan Dahl had vision to get rid of nginx/apache/whatever entirely and make node talk directly to the internet. When do you think this will be reality?
Both nginx and Node use an asynchronous and event-driven approach. The communication between them will go more or less like this:
nginx receives a request
nginx forwards the request to the Node process and immediately goes back to wait for more requests
Node receives the request from nginx
Node handles the request with minimal CPU usage, until at some point it needs to issue one or more I/O requests (read from a database, write the response, etc). At this point it launches all these I/O requests and goes back to wait for more requests.
The above can repeat lots of times. You could have hundreds of thousands of requests all in a non-blocking wait state where nginx is waiting for Node and Node is waiting for I/O. And while this happens both nginx and Node are ready to accept even more requests!
Eventually async I/O started by the Node process will complete and a callback function will get invoked.
If there are still I/O requests that haven't completed for this request, then Node goes back to its loop one more time. It can also happen that once an I/O operation completes this data is consumed by the Node callback and then new I/O needs to happen, so Node can start more async I/O requests before going back to the loop.
Eventually all I/O operations started by Node for a particular request will be complete, including those that write the response back to nginx. So Node ends this request, and then as always goes back to its loop.
nginx receives an event indicating that response data has arrived for a request, so it takes that data and writes it back to the client, once again in a non-blocking fashion. When the response has been written to the client and event will trigger and nginx will then end the request.
You are asking about what would happen if nginx and Node can handle a different number of maximum connections. They really don't have a maximum, the maximum in general comes from operating system configuration, for example from the maximum number of open handles the system can have at a time or the CPU throughput. So your question does not really apply. If the system is configured correctly and all processes are I/O bound, neither nginx or Node will ever block.
Putting Apache in front of Node will only work well if you can guarantee that your Apache never blocks (i.e it never reaches its maximum connection limit). This is hard/impossible to achieve for large number of connections, because Apache uses an individual process or thread for each connection. nginx and Node scale really well, Apache does not.
Running Node without another server in front works fine and it should be okay for small/medium load sites. The reason putting a web server in front of it is preferred is that web servers like nginx come with features that Node does not have and you would need to implement yourself. Things like caching, load balancing, running multiple apps from the same server, etc.
I think your questions have been largely covered by some of the others answers, but there are a few pieces missing, and some that I disagree with, so here are mine:
The event loops are isolated from each other at the process level, but do interact. The issues you're most likely to encounter are around the configuration of nginx response buffers, chunked data, etc. but this is optimisation rather than error resolution.
As you point out, if you use Apache you're nullifying the benefit of using Node.js, i.e. massive concurrency and websockets. I wouldn't recommend doing that.
People are already using Node.js at the front of their stack. Searching for benchmarks returns some reasonable-looking results in Node's favour, so performance to my mind isn't an issue. However, there are still reasons to put Nginx in front of Node.
Security - Node has been given increasing scrutiny, but it's still young. You may not have problems here, but caution is often your friend.
Training - Ops staff that you hire will know how to manage Nginx, but the configuration and management of your custom Node app will only ever be understood by those people your developers successfully communicate it to. In some companies this is nobody.
Operational Flexibility - If you reach scale you might want to split out the serving of static content, purely to reduce the load on your app servers. You might want to split content amongst different domains and have it managed separately, or have different SSL or proxying behaviour for different domains or URL patterns. These are the things that are easy for Ops guys to configure in Nginx, but you'd have to code manually in a Node app.
The event loops are independent. Event loops are implemented at the application level, so neither cares what sort of architecture the other uses.
NodeJS is good at many things, but there are some places where it still falters. Once example is serving static files. At the moment, nodejs performs fairly poorly in this test, so having a dedicated web server for your static files greatly improves response time. Also, nodejs is still in its infancy, and has not been "tested and hardened" in the matters of security like Apache on nginX.
It'll take a long time for people to consider fronting nodejs all by itself. The cluster module is a step in the right direction, but it'll take a long time even after it reaches v1 before it happens.
Both event loops are unrelated. They don't play together.
Yes, it is pretty useless. Apache is not a load balancer.
What Ryan Dahl said may be applicable already. The limit of concurrent users is definitely higher than that of Apache. Before node.js websites with fair amount of concurrent users had to use nginx to balance the load. For small to medium sized businesses it can be done with node.js alone. But ruling out nginx completely will take time. Let node.js be stable before it can follow this ambitious dream.
Would nginx be a more suitable choice as a web server for high traffic websites?
The site we will be building is an e-commerce site, if that makes a difference.
I am really interested in the actual 'why' from a technical point of view either way. i.e., why would nginx be a better choice for this type of site from a technical standpoint, or the opposite, why it wouldn't?
Martin,
In general, Nginx is better for high-traffic sites due to its event-driven architecture. Rather than handling each request in a distinct thread, it uses non-blocking I/O to service many requests in each thread.
The important aspect of this architecture is the reduced use of processes or threads. A thread can consume anywhere from 2MB to over 64MB of RAM. So when Apache serves a 10KB JPEG, it may actually be using a significant amount of RAM. It becomes worse if you have slow clients (e.g. smartphones) where the request may keep a thread busy for several seconds.
Many people find that running Nginx as a proxy in front of Apache to be an ideal middle ground. Nginx talks to the slow clients and can do so using a very small amount of RAM. When requests are forwarded to Apache, the request speed is limited by your local connectivity, not that of the remote user. This means that the network bottleneck will not keep the request (and it's memory-hogging thread) alive for any longer than necessary.
In short you get the low-resource benefits of Nginx coupled with the wide feature-set of Apache.
How is Apache in respect to handling the c10k problem under normal conditions ?
Say while running very small scripts with little data, or do I need to scale out if I use Apache?
In the background heavy lifting is done by a few servers running specialized software that processes the requests but I'd like to use Apache as a front. Is this a viable plan?
I consider Apache to be more of an origin server - running something like mod_php or mod_perl to generate the content and being smart about routing to the appropriate system.
If you are getting thousands of concurrent hits to the front of your site, with a mix of types of data (static and dynamic) being returned, you may find it useful to put a more optimised system in front of it though.
The classic post-optimisation problem with Apache isn't generating the dynamic content (or at least, that can be optimised for early in the process), but simply waiting for a slow client to be able to receive the bytes that are being sent. It can therefore be a significant advantage to put a reverse proxy, in the form of Squid or Nginx, in front of the servers to take over the 'spoon-feeding' of the slow network clients, while allowing the content production to happen at full speed, and at local network speeds - 100Mb/sec or even gigabit speeds - if it even has to traverse a network at all.
I'm assuming you've probably seen this data, but if not, it might give you some idea.
Guys, imagine that you are running web server with 10K connections (simultaneous). How could it be?
You've got many many connections per second
Dynamic content
Are you sure that your CPU can handle that many PHP sessions for example? I guess no, so why are you thinking about C10K problem? :D
Static content - small files
And still soo many connections? On single server? Probably you've got problems with networking/throughput too or you are future competitor of Google. Use lighttpd which addresses C10K problem and is stable - fly light. Using Apache for only static files for large sites is obvious.
Your clients are downloading large files for a large time - static content
ISO images, archives etc
If you are doing it via web server - FTP may be more appropriate.
Video streaming
Use lighttpd or specialized software. And still... What about other resources?
I am using Linux Virtual Server as load balancer in front of apache servers (with specific patches for LVS-NAT) and I am happy :) This string is an answer you want to hear.
I currently have a cluster of 4 Apache web servers which are used to serve up static files of up to 30Mb in size. Generally, I can expect up to 5000 concurrent connections to these servers. What performance improvement would I expect to get by moving this to lighttpd?
I would expect it to handle the concurrency with much more ease and less memory overhead. I've stopped deploying Apache pretty much everywhere I can.
You may also consider nginx for a comparison.
If you are using Apache with MPM with worker or event you probably won't see much of a difference. If you haven't moved to using them I would give that a try. There isn't really any problem with lighttpd though either. I think today it is just a matter of picking one and going with it.
If I where serving that type of file I would push it out to a CDN and not have to worry about it. There are plenty of cheap ones now like CacheFly and Amazon's Cloudfront.
From the top of my head:
Smaller memory footprint
Quicker file reads
Definitely check out the benchmark at their site, they provide a lot of information on this topic: http://www.lighttpd.net/benchmark