Default TurnKey webserver: Continue with Apache? Switch to Nginx instead?

[JedMeister]

TurnKey has historically always provided Apache as the "default webserver" for all appliance usage. Where we were only serving a simple landing page provided by us (aka tklweb-cp), we used LigHTTPd. In more recent times, we've continued to use Apache as the "default", except where the requirement is serving simple HTML, or usage as a reverse proxy. Then we're used Nginx in more recent times. Over the years, there have been suggestions/requests to change from Apache2 to Nginx as our "default webserver".

We've considered that a few times, but always landed back on continuing to use Apache as the "default webserver" The rationale has been because of the following points:

• Apache has been one of the most popular webservers available.
• Whilst often considered a somewhat heavy, but full featured webserver; it's performance is still quite good. Even with relatively low resources it compete's relatively favourably with Nginx (using php-fpm).
• Webmin has an Apache2 module which is maintained by the core team (there is a 3rd party Nginx module, which appears to work but has not been updated in ages - I've spoken to the author a few years ago and he claimed that as it still works, so there is no need for updates).
• A1 upstream Apache documentation, plus multitudes of 3rd party documentation and tutorials available online. The vast majority of webserver config docs are for Apache!
• Because of points regarding documentation/tutorial/configuration above, Apache is arguably one of the most newb friendly webservers around.
• Apache has some unique features (e.g. ,htaccess file support) which many "self hostable" projects leverage to make it easy to install "everywhere" (e.g. .htaccess files allow snippets of Apache config to be used on shared hosting platforms).

Having said that, there is growing interest in more "modern" and "advanced" features, such as HTTP/2 support (Apache's support requires php-fpm). So some pushback against points raised above could be:

• Nginx is now the most popular webserver. (Apache continues to slowly but surely lose marketshare).
• Nginx is often considered to be a better performer than Apache (our own research suggests that this is not always the case, but it certainly is the public perception).
• We could consider packaging the Nginx Webmin module and either maintaining it and/or discussing with Webmin devs on what might be required to get it included in the default modules.
• Nginx documentation and other online resources (such as tutorials, etc) continue to grow ans Nginx's marketshare continues to grow.
• Whilst Nginx doesn't support .htaccess files, Apache 2 config and .htaccess files can be relatively easily converted to Nginx config. E.g. using Nginx docs (and e.g. here). There are even online services, e.g. here and here.
• Nginx supports HTTP/2 OOTB. (Apache can support this via php-fpm too, but mod_php is where Apache gains it's advantages, so without that, using Nginx seems like a "no brainer").
• probably some other stuff that I haven't thought of...

[JedMeister]

We'll continue with Apache for v18.x. Moving this issue to the v19.0 milestone for further consideration...

[gstrauss]

FYI: lighttpd is frequently the web server used in OpenWRT, and home routers behind firewalls are not counted in the in the metrics about web server "popularity". lighttpd supports HTTP/2 OOTB and supports many of the features discussed above. Using PHP-FPM to which lighttpd connects via unix domain socket is the recommended way to manage PHP applications, though lighttpd can also run PHP as CGI.

While lighttpd does not support .htaccess -- because .htaccess dates back to the 1990s where it was common to run a single, monolithic Apache server -- nowadays if you need a specific Apache .htaccess feature and do not want to convert to another server syntax, then you can easily configure lighttpd or nginx to reverse proxy back to an Apache instance, and use Apache as a backend application server for the specific web app, and let lighttpd or nginx handle everything else, using lower resources than Apache.

[JedMeister]

Hi @gstrauss I see you are a member of the LigHTTPd team! Thanks for dropping in to say hi. 😄

FWIW, we already use lighty for a number of our appliances. When we started, lighttpd was our lightweight option. We have continued to use Apache as the main web server for all of the above mentioned points.

I agree that most, if not all of the + points for Nginx above also related to Lighty.

Thanks for the tip re reverse proxying to Apache. Whilst that might be relevant for end users, as much as possible we try to keep our appliances as light as possible. If we needed to use .htaccess files, then we'd either convert them, or just use Apache.

Regardless, thanks again for dropping in and sharing your perspective. It's appreciated.

TBH, the main reason why we have considered switching from Apache is users requesting Nginx.