I'm to new Scinet. What's *nix chat? Unix? Or nginx? They both come to mindwhen I see the name of this echo.
If it's nginx, then I have some questions for that category.
I'm to new Scinet. What's *nix chat? Unix? Or nginx? They both come to mind when I see the name of this echo.
That generally refers to Linux, Unix, and other Unix-like operating systems.Probably still not a bad place to ask about nginx though. :)
If it's nginx, then I have some questions for that category.
I guess you found some stuck packets on your system, lol.
Great to see some replies from the past 8 months.
That generally refers to Linux, Unix, and other Unix-like operating systems. Probably still not a bad place to ask about nginx though. :)
But that was a message that I hoped to hear back from people about.
Anyone gotexperience using nginx as an alternative to apache?
That generally refers to Linux, Unix, and other Unix-like operating systems.Probably still not a bad place to ask about nginx though. :)
It's the only way to run a webserver (nginx & linux of course).
No, there are others.
Yes, but the other suck.
That's just an opinion.
35.7% of the world's webservers are running Apache while 32.6% are running nginx. Everything else lags behind greatly.
Anyway, this coversation is ended because I'm bored and I've proved my pointthat there's other options.
Anyway, this coversation is ended because I'm bored and I've proved m pointthat there's other options.
Yes, other options, but they suck.
Generally speaking, NGINX will handle more traffic and a higher connectionrate out of the box with the same machine specs and is usually chosen overApache in high traffic websites (or as a front-end cache to ease the life ofApache on the backend).
Anyway, this coversation is ended because I'm bored and I've prove pointthat there's other options.
Yes, other options, but they suck.
I tend to agree, my main choice is NGINX. I've seen people run servers with everything under the sun, even with 'python3 -m http.server' and 'php -S'. The fact they exists doesn't make them good options.
I tend to agree, my main choice is NGINX. I've seen people run servers everything under the sun, even with 'python3 -m http.server' and 'php - The fact they exists doesn't make them good options.
I must confess I have been using OpenBSD's httpd as of late. It is not super featureful, but it is very easy to configure and really has all
the basics. Not that I would use it for some big operation, but for
small sites it works well.
Plus, as deployed in OpenBSD, it has chroot and limited isolation by default. --
It runs a lot leaner than Apache and it's quite powerful, especially
when using it as a reverse proxy or for caching.
Ha! That's literally the only thing I've done with NGINX. It made a surprisingly awesome proxy though. Most of my *nix web servification experience is with good ol' Apache.
You would love nginx if you used it as the engine itself.
Can it do what apache-itk does? Basically you can run each virtualhost
as itsown user for better separation between users.
You would love nginx if you used it as the engine itself.
It runs a lot leaner than Apache and it's quite powerful, especially
when using it as a reverse proxy or for caching.
Generally speaking, NGINX will handle more traffic and a higher
connection rate out of the box with the same machine specs and is
usually chosen over Apache in high traffic websites (or as a front-end cache to ease the life of Apache on the backend).
Generally speaking, NGINX will handle more traffic and a higher connection rate out of the box with the same machine specs and is usually chosen over Apache in high traffic websites (or as a front-en cache to ease the life of Apache on the backend).
Thanks, that sounds like the part of the story I didn't read when I
tried it out. I don't have a high-traffic site, so that could also be
part of the reason why I didn't see a page speed performance improvement upon switching. Maybe it's beneficial for a low-traffic site to stick
with Apache (for users who need speed.)
| Sysop: | altere |
|---|---|
| Location: | Houston, TX |
| Users: | 60 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 08:42:47 |
| Calls: | 516 |
| Files: | 6,992 |
| D/L today: |
3 files (36K bytes) |
| Messages: | 288,824 |