CODEWITHSUNDEEP
apachenginxjettyload-balancinglatency
virtualeyes
virtualeyes

Reputation: 11235

Low latency web server/load balancer for the non-Twitters of the world

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 ;-)

Upvotes: 2

Views: 1575

Answers (2)

Gil
Gil

Reputation: 3334

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.

Upvotes: 3

MTeck
MTeck

Reputation: 1688

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.

Upvotes: 0

Related Questions