Hybrid Web Server (NGINX + Apache)

Shaijee

Integrate NGINX and Apache to create a hybrid web server solution, combining the performance and efficiency of NGINX with the flexibility and extensive module support of Apache.

Benefits:

Enhanced Performance: Leveraging NGINX's event-driven architecture for handling multiple connections efficiently, resulting in improved performance and faster response times.
Flexibility: Retain Apache's vast ecosystem of modules and configurations, allowing seamless integration with existing setups and support for diverse web applications.
Load Balancing and Caching: Utilize NGINX's advanced load balancing and caching capabilities to optimize resource allocation and accelerate content delivery.
Security: Benefit from NGINX's robust security features such as rate limiting, SSL/TLS termination, and DDoS protection, reinforcing the overall security posture of the web server.
Scalability: Scale effortlessly with increased traffic demands by harnessing NGINX's ability to handle concurrent connections efficiently while maintaining compatibility with Apache's scalability features.
Streamlined Directory-Level Configuration: With native .htaccess support in the Hybrid Web Server, users can easily manage directory-level configurations using familiar Apache syntax. This streamlines the process of fine-tuning settings for specific directories, enhancing flexibility and customization without the need for complex server-wide modifications.

This integration can offers the best of both worlds, empowering users to achieve optimal performance, flexibility, and security in the web hosting environment.

8Dweb

Is this not what Plesk does? I like the idea, actually.

xyzulu

Other providers already have this option, why not just use them?

I don’t see the same level of performance on Enchance since the underlying framework won’t benefit as much from nginx proxying Apache all inside a docker container.

JohnB

xyzulu Other providers already have this option, why not just use them?

See so many feature requests that amount to "give me same features as x competitor but with all the positives of Enhance" to some degree its like asking Toyota to add Kia features but with the reliability lol

Shaijee

xyzulu Other providers already have this option, why not just use them?

I don’t see the same level of performance on Enchance since the underlying framework won’t benefit as much from nginx proxying Apache all inside a docker container.

What to use/Not is my personal choice, Man.

By the way, I've been using RunCloud from the beginning. I appreciate their Hybrid Stack (NGINX + Apache) and the RunCache (WP Plugin); it's truly impressive. Most importantly, we can use .htaccess along with NGINX features.

I've recently started using Enhance. It has great potential, which is why I suggested advanced features for Enhance. These days, people are seeking advanced features coupled with managed services. See the current market trend. Many hosting companies have begun offering managed services (easy to manage) like Cloudways.

Enhance should offer advanced features such as a Hybrid Stack (NGINX + Apache), like other companies.

Adam

It's definitely possible if enough people want it but it adds a lot of complexity to your stack, not to mention the additional memory requirement of running 2 separate web servers.

Shaijee

Adam It's definitely possible if enough people want it but it adds a lot of complexity to your stack, not to mention the additional memory requirement of running 2 separate web servers.

Yes, it's a bit complex stack. However, we will reap the benefits of both web servers in one stack. Additionally, Enhance currently faces some limitations because not all stacks support the .htaccess, With this hybrid stack, that problem will be resolved as well.

RunCloud, Cloudways, and many other companies offer this Stack, which is truly excellent.

bgeek

Shaijee which is why I suggested advanced features for Enhance.

I'm sorry but this is actually not the "advanced feature". I've tested, and searched for all available detailed tests, most kinds of Webserver stacks in the past a few years. Apache with Ngnix doing reverse proxy was not as efficient as Nginx alone, for WordPress. George (eva2000), the developer of Centminmod, has done a lot of such thorough tests in the past. You may want to check. If the usage of .htaccess is the main point, then OLS would already surpass Apache+Nginx.

Another thing I may want you to notice is, there are always open source projects or self-developed-managed projects on the web server part coming out every now and then. They want to compete with the big brands, so they usually try to use the hottest and most promising technologies at the moment. As far as I know, before Plesk has implemented Apache+Nginx, there were a lot of active Webserver stacks projects using this. But recent years, especially since 2020, I've seen a lot less of them. Even Nginx+Vanish is more popular now.

So no, please don't consider Apache+Nginx to be an advanced feature. I'd rather Enhance team to spend more time on making the configs of OLS permanent, which would be a very unique competing advantage on the market.

Anyway, I could be wrong. That's just my 2 cents.

DracoBlue

This is a good solution, however, if Apache, NGINX, OLS, and LS are available in Enhance, I don't think it's worth spending time on it, unless in the future. I am eagerly awaiting the opportunity for full NGINX configuration.

WebInfra

NGINX running as a reverse proxy will only work for static contents, which isn't worth it for all the complexities. There's a reason why those providers with such setups usually perform poorly compared to full blown NGINX or LiteSpeed.

JohnB

I agree its not a good stack for MOST sites.

It does one thing really good which is serving static files. So maybe for a site with a lot of downloadable files its a good choice. Like literally sites with very large downloadable files.

However most sites run into scaling issues when hit with a lot of uncachable requests. For example a busy ecommerce store. This hybrid approach will actually fail faster than pure apache in those cases. Pure Nginx and litespeed handle this the best.

For static sites you can just use any decent caching plugin and Apache with minor configuration can handle very very high loads.

A lot of providers offer the Hybrid stack, but it doesn't make it good for most sites or customers.

Edit: It would probably help sites with 10mb images and other insanely sized assets which might be why some providers like it. My opinion is don't spend time making a solution that masks badly developed sites when that same time could be used to make a tool that warns about insanely sized assets or an "optimizer" tool.

charlesalmeida

Hello, I believe that Enhance has a lot of potential in NGINX with fullpage cache via Fastcgi, there are very few details missing that it is the best server available. Always remembering that the official WordPress support stack has NGINX as the recommended server. I don't like Litespeed's behavior, it has some bugs.

Default configuration NGINX via Enhance

Page Caching
Possibility to define caching time
POST request no cache default
Page Cache Exclusions (/wp-admin/, /wp-json/, /xmlrpc.php, /wp-.*.php etc..
and can be added via the panel.)
Browser Caching (css, js,images.. set time)
Plugin NGINX auto Purge with cache daemon Fastcgi

xyzulu

charlesalmeida Even now NGINX is available, but you are not asking/agreeing to a hybrid stack as this thread is about right? Instead you are asking for NGINX server caching with FPM right? If so, perhaps a new feature request for this might be appropriate (perhaps one already exists).

charlesalmeida

xyzulu
I'm not requesting resources, just adding an idea here in this thread. And I also don't believe Enhance will implement full NGINX stacking.

charlesalmeida

xyzulu
Yes, I already left a request for the full NGINX stack, but it didn't get any likes or relevant comments anyway.

JohnB

charlesalmeida I would post it again. There are a lot of feature requests sometimes and things go unnoticed. Or I think if its a week with a lot of "add x feature to save me 5 minutes of work" requests people stop reading them.

JohnB

bgeek Very well said and a good example of why we dont need feature requests that amount to "Plesk has it so enhance should"

Plesk is a very very average panel designed around dated technologies with average security. It shouldn't be copied. Enhance should be cutting edge and look to the feature not try to have the same features.

Its like people going to a linux forum and saying "add exe support" if you need that go to windows otherwise learn the linux way.