From: Johann W. <jw...@oy...> - 2012-02-17 07:47:26
|
Hi Aaron, nginx seems to be a very good alternative to the full blown Apache – most of Apache's features won't be used anyway. I cannot give any info for running with the FastCGI adaptor as I never used it but perhaps you should just try setting up a test server and see if it works (you mentioned a problem with multipart form submission, so you could use a test app that uses ERAttachment). Nginx apparently is extendable by modules as Apache does. Perhaps there is any chance that someone with good C experience ports the Apache adaptor to nginx? *dream mode off* jw Am 16.02.2012 um 04:31 schrieb Aaron Rosenzweig: > Hello WOrriors, > > Thank you all who have spent time developing solutions to host WO > apps. From the early days of "WOLastic" for EC2 to the latest > presentations by Pascal, Miguel, and David LeBer. > > Cut to the chase: > ==================== > Should we stop using Apache and use Nginx with a FastCGI adaptor for > all our servers? > > A bit more detail: > ==================== > Nginx is a webserver that has been around a while and is very memory > efficient. Sounds like a better choice for not only VPS (virtual > private servers / cloud computers) but also for any server. This being > said, I bet 98% of us use Apache, most likely because it is installed > already on OS X... but these are post Xserve day perhaps we should > reconsider our web server. > > Drinking from fire hose amount of detail: > ==================== > I enjoyed the screencasts presented at the last WOWODC regarding > Xserve alternatives which discussed various choices in getting your > apps out and deployed for the world to use. [I missed seeing you guys > in person] I was shocked to see the amount of Ram we tended to use. Do > we really need 2 gigs of Ram to run a WO server. Really? What about > the good old days when Chrysler financial ran on machines with > probably 128 megs of Ram or less. > > Part of the problem appears to be Linux. From what I've read, running > the same services will take one third the amount of Ram if run on > FreeBSD. > > I don't know if this is still the case but back in the day when dual > CPU motherboards first came out and operating systems struggled to > provide SMP (Symmetric Multi Processing), FreeBSD and OSX used in- > process-threads to run on multiple cpus. In contrast, Linux simply > "forked" a new process level thread in Java. We're talking "p-threads" > vs. "k-threads" here. This "worked" and allowed usage of all your cpu > cores but was rather heavy. Do you really need a new OS process for > each thread? > > Finally, Apache seems a bit "fat". It too will fork a new process for > each incoming connection. If too many people connect to your webserver > at the same time Apache will fall over due to lack of Ram. In > contrast, nginx will sip Ram and happily munch on each connection > quickly with its internal event driven nature. > > I realize Apache has been on Mac OS X forever and we are all comfy > with it. If for no other reason, "we know it works" is the best > argument I can see to not play with nginx. I just don't want to > purchase a 2 gig VPS for that reason alone... I'd rather experiment. > > Can anyone tell me why I should *not* try Nginx with the FastCGI > adaptor? I read rumblings that it was broken with multi-part mime > binary form submission but later fixed. Did this ever make it into the > Wonder code base FastCGI adaptor? Does anyone happily run nginx with > the FastCGI adaptor today? > > Many thanks, > -- Aaron > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning > Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing > also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service. > http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/ |