06 Oct, 2012, Kjwah wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
Anyone else switch to it?

Just curious if so, how are you using? In combination with Apache? As a proxy cache server? Your standard web server combined with php5-fpm?
07 Oct, 2012, Idealiad wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
I've put this in front of an app as a proxy / static file server. I'm no expert with it but it was pretty simple to get going.
07 Oct, 2012, quixadhal wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
What's it do for you that the existing (and well known/tested) combination of apache + squid + exim + imapd doesn't do?

IE: Why would I want to go to the effort, and live with the potential incompatibilities, of switching to it?

I see it's supposed to be good for high volume sites, which is exactly what the MUD community needs. *grin*
07 Oct, 2012, Runter wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
Nginx is a good option in almost any situation. The only time you may not want to use it is if you already know other things better, or don't want to "go to the effort" of switching. Yes, it's true Nginx is known for performance, but equally it's known known for stability, feature set, simple configuration, and low resource consumption. The low resource consumption is going to be important for many of us. With almost 10 years of development and testing on high throughput sites, it's almost hand down the best facade-style webserver of this nature. It's the reason I use it at work where we have a demanding load, and it's why I use it for smaller projects as well. I opt to have it serve the routes to thin, or other web servers like this, but all of my routes hit nginx first. It's especially good for managing subdomains.

If you want specifics about why it's better than Apache for even small (especially small) projects then you can look at the way apache spawns processes and the memory it requires for it to be preferment. In my experiences it takes 30-50M of memory per request. Remember, even a single hit to your site very well use many requests. This can result in an explosion of memory usage, and if you have more than a few people hitting your site it gets cost prohibitive to have 32 gig ram servers for many of us.
07 Oct, 2012, Tyche wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
Looks like it's a closed source project to ME. ;-)
07 Oct, 2012, quixadhal wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
I've never had an "explosion" of memory use, but then I actually read the config files and adjust the settings for the kind of use I expect to get. The default parameters are indeed pretty hungry, but then they're designed for much higher traffic sites than most of us will likely use for our hobbies.


<IfModule mpm_prefork_module>
StartServers 1
MinSpareServers 1
MaxSpareServers 4
MaxClients 25
MaxRequestsPerChild 0


root 11742 0.0 1.1 64900 8984 ? Ss Sep22 0:36 /usr/sbin/apache2 -k start
www-data 25412 0.0 1.0 277996 8352 ? Sl 06:25 0:00 /usr/sbin/apache2 -k start
www-data 25413 0.0 1.7 66768 13892 ? S 06:25 0:00 /usr/sbin/apache2 -k start
www-data 25880 0.0 1.8 66708 14376 ? S 07:00 0:00 /usr/sbin/apache2 -k start
www-data 25881 0.0 1.8 66708 14376 ? S 07:00 0:00 /usr/sbin/apache2 -k start

and finally

Current Time: Sunday, 07-Oct-2012 15:37:04 EDT
Restart Time: Saturday, 22-Sep-2012 15:25:30 EDT
Parent Server Generation: 5
Server uptime: 15 days 11 minutes 34 seconds
Total accesses: 19573 - Total Traffic: 33.0 MB
10 Oct, 2012, Kelvin wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
Kjwah said:
Anyone else switch to it?

Just curious if so, how are you using? In combination with Apache? As a proxy cache server? Your standard web server combined with php5-fpm?

I find the default configuration to be slimmer (subjectively) , and the config files easier to manage than Apache. I use nginx extensively as a reverse proxy for work and play, which nginx is awesome at. We chose it because of its ease of configuration and its very trim initial state. Apache can be trimmed down to the bone and run pretty lean, too, we just don't feel like dealing with it, and I don't care for Apache's many and varied config files (again, subjective).

Realistically, in the case of a reverse proxy, just go with what you like better. The difference in performance won't really matter. If you look at nginx, play with it, and end up liking it (for a reverse proxy), just use it. You're likely to see a lot better gains optimizing something else.

Of course, if you're not looking at it as a reverse proxy, disregard everything I've said, as that's the only thing I've used it for.
20 Oct, 2012, Kjwah wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
Well, I'm using it because I bought a budget vps at 20 dollars a year. Once my year is up, I'm actually going to upgrade, they're pretty great when it comes to service. lol but I have mysql and nginx sitting around 150mb of memory at max usage. I'm allowed 256mb of memory with a burst to 768 or some crap but I like to play it safe with around a burst to 256. :D

Believe it or not, wordpress has a good setup for nginx so if you're curious check it out.

nginx isn't the best or anything, if you know apache and have the resources, use it. Personally, I like the configuration of nginx. It just feels right. :D

^^ Right on Kelvin

EDIT: As for the effort, the effort was to move from apache. I hate that beast.

Tyche said:
Looks like it's a closed source project to ME. ;-)

Not everything has to be public domain. BSD Like license is fine. Also, you know apache has their own license, right?