webservers Apache 2 or Nginx?

[OP Matthew S. 202]

Which HTTP server do you guys prefer?

Please explain your reasonings too :p

Edited September 7, 2012 by DJ Dark

[articuno1au 1,264]

I'm a huge fan of IIS.

Apart from it being pretty much my only choice (given I code in ASP.net), I find it reliable, fast and childs play to config and run.

I'm sure I'll cop some flack for this one >.>

[The_Decryptor 1,088]

I like nginx since it's a much smaller application, yet at the same time more performant than other servers. That said you can "fix" a lot of issues with Apache by structuring your setup differently.

[Max Norris 1,832]

Kind of a fan of IIS as well, but usually go with Apache 2 just for consistency's sake as it runs on all the different OS's my servers need to work with, that and I'm just used to the Apache way of doing things versus Nginx.

[+Nik Louch 4,852]

Having come from (and still using) IIS to Apache2. I much prefer Apache2.

[n_K 1,028]

Originally used Apache/IIS, back in server 2000 I found IIS to be pretty crap, there were also a lot of exploits for it at the time and I played around with apache on red hat 9.

Moved to Apache2.0 on windows and still use it on that actually, might update to Apache2.2 one day.

Using nginx for everything else, smaller and more lightweight than apache and can do some very nifty stuff including caching well.

[Praetor 987]

i like Apache and IIS, never tried nginx but heard wonders about it.

[Kami- 178]

IIS / Apache2

[Jub Fequois 266]

I run both Nginx and Apache on most of my servers, actually. Apache to process and Nginx to serve. (Lots of caching involved usually.)

[FlintyV 732]

Straight up Nginx though I've heard the latest Apache 2.4 offers a huge increase in performance over older versions.

[paxa 9]

apache2 while working on a linux box and iis on ws08 box

[Phouchg 1,744]

1) IIS (because it's convenient)

2) Lighttpd (because it's ultralight and, yes, Windows builds exist)

3) Fortitude (because it's easy to setup)

Depends on occasion. I do not work profesionally with this.

[TheGhostWalker 36]

Nginx and lighttpd tbh.

Both for their performance (and nginx can also be used as a full-fledged webserver instead of a reverse proxy with the serving of static files) and also because they are less likely to kill themselves when they get an incoming slowloris attack or something like that.

Also, to not forget, their modular configuration :)

[articuno1au 1,264]

I really didn't like Lighttpd.

Nginx is pretty good though.

[togermano 50]

cherokee..... lightweight like httpd but better and easier to setup

[Medfordite 138]

Tried nginx on my server, but ran into some problems with scripts (Mostly Joomla), so reverted back to Apache2 and have been pretty satisfied there.

[CrispCreations 4]

Had good experiences with Apache 2 in both Windows and Linux environments for many years.

[hjf288 68]

Nginx, it handles our load better than Apache whilst using less resources.

People keep saying OMG Apache 2.4 with Event MPM, fair enough but it still isn't as fast as Nginx :)

[exotoxic 283]

Apache for dynamic, nginx for static.