Nginx vs. Apache, All Things Considered
-
Hey Peeps,
I've been struggling lately with a new static site, and I'm looking for anyone's opinion who's had to optimize a site using Nginx. I understand that Nginx is recommended for static sites, however I want to avoid being in a situation where I can't do things like write redirect rules the way I want to.
Considering that it will be hosting a Static site, are there any features or functions that Nginx lacks when compared to Apache, such as ability to write rewrite rules, etc.?
-
Great to hear. Let me know if you have any question when you start that project.
Casey
-
Yup, I'm in the same boat as you, I'd much rather do server-side redirects..
As an update on this "project", we used the pageless redirects in our staging environment on S3 just now, but were unsuccessful. Certain redirects that we set up in pageless redirects, (such as adding a trailing slash to URLs without,) got clobbered by S3's default setting of 302ing to adding a trailing slash. Weak sauce, Amazon!
At this point, we're going with Apache, since it's the App that our developers know best and we've had too many problems to experiment with our live environment. This being said, our next project after we relaunch with proper redirects will be to begin testing on our stage with Nginx
Thanks for your input!
-
Hey Danny,
I've always done 301 redirects from the server and avoided any other method. This was more for my sanity to make sure that I was getting all the equity I could if there was a difference, not saying there is a difference but if there way, I wanted to be safe. Since it sounds like you may be constrained by your technology, the solution you are going with is fine but if you had both options available, I'd go with the server side redirect always.
-
Thanks Casey!
We've actually found a different work-around that we are looking at right now, using the "pageless redirects" plugin for Jekyll. Basically it uses the meta refresh + rel canon redirection method that Matt Cutts got called out on a while ago. This would allow us to stay on S3 and maintain our blazing fast site speed.
Through my research so far, this seems to pass equity in much the same way as a Server App 301.. Have you had any experiences/heard anything to the contrary?
-
Hi Danny,
The Moz.com website/blog are running on PHP/Nginx. As Matthew said, Nginx is much faster and less intensive on the servers for both CPU and memory. Nginx has some great documentation and is really easy to get things to redirect. It's as easy as adding lines like the following to your configuration and your good to go:
rewrite ^/q$ /community/q permanent;
rewrite ^/q/(.*)$ /community/q/$1 permanent;Making the switch from Apache to Nginx was one of the best things we ever did and I would highly suggest you do the same thing for both static and any dynamic sites you may have. I'll most likely never use Apache again.
Casey
-
From the little I know of Nginx, I know it is meant to be faster, less intensive on server memory and able to handle more concurrent connections, but Apache is more widely supported across different servers and is more flexible out of the box.
The one thing I have had to get my head around in working on clients sites that run on Nginx is the different URL rewrite rules i.e. http://nginx.org/en/docs/http/converting_rewrite_rules.html
-
Thanks Jeff!
I think we're going to go with Apache for now, since it's what all of us are well-versed in. We'll probably be switching to Nginx at some point in the future, and focusing on other aspects that you mentioned, such as caching and compression, in the meantime.
Cheers.
-
Danny - We use Nginx on our WordPress site, and it's pretty quick and easy. We're able to use the same .htaccess rules to handle rewrites, and for the most part, there's very little downside. You do want to make sure that your site isn't going to break before you launch it on Nginx, so I'd test it with a test URL first before you push it live.
We're also running Varnish as a caching system, and our page load speed takes the page from a slowwww load time to a really fast 1.5 second load time.
Hope this helps...
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
URLs with dashes between words or nothing at all? ( ../some-content vs. ../somecontent)
Here's a quick and easy question: Is there any problem with not using dashes in between words for URLs? Obviously the readability factor is a concern, but from a search engine standpoint? Thanks in advance!
Technical SEO | | tbinga0 -
CNAME vs 301 redirect
Hi all, Recently I created a website for a new client and my next job is trying to get them higher in Google. I added them in OSE and noticed some strange backlinks. To my surprise the client has about 20 domain names. All automatically poiting to (showing) the same new mainsite now. www.maindomain.nl www.maindomain.be
Technical SEO | | Houdoe
www.maindomain.eu
www.maindomain.com
www.otherdomain.nl
www.otherdomain.com
... Some of these domains have backlinks too (but not so much). I suggested to 301 redirect them all to the main site. Just to avoid duplicate content. But now the webhoster comes into play: "It's a problem, client has only 1 hosting account, blablabla...". They told me they could CNAME the 20 domains to the main domain. Or A-record them to an IP address. This is too technical stuff for me. So my concrete questions are: Is it smart to do anything at all or am I just harming my client? The main site is ranking pretty well now. And some backlinks are from their copy sites (probably because everywhere the logo links to the full mainsite url). Does the CNAME or A-record solution has the same effect as a 301 redirect, from SEO perspective? Many thanks,
Hans0 -
Different domains vs subdomains for 6 e-shops
We have to choose to stay working with different domain or move all 6 domains to new domain. Right now we have 6 different brand e-shops with 6 domains that have Domain Authority 30-40. So for example:
Technical SEO | | TauriUrb
e-shop1.com
e-shop2.com
.. And we are thinkig about making brand new domain and move all these domains content and link juice into one domain with 301 redirect. So we would have one e-shop solution with 6 subdomains like: e-shop1.newdomain.com
e-shop2.newdomain.com
... Like gap.com does with their brands or http://www.andotherbrands.com. That each brand has subdomains but they use same e-shop solution. With same domains or new subdomains strategy, we will improve internal linking structure between all these e-shops. We have also considerd that with new domain we don't have good organic search results within few first months. So we try to see the bigger picture and consider SEO future. SO QUESTION IS:
Lets leave brand marketing out, then what would you suggest to do? To stay with 6 different DA 30-40 domains or build one stong domain with 6 different brand subpages? We cant use subcategories. All subpages products will be clothes. Latetly there as beed many news and articles that subdomains are part of main domain and vice versa we are looking suggestions from this board. As we right now think that as we have weak domains righ now it would be better idea to start building one strong domain.0 -
Competitive vs. non-competitive keywords
Posting this on behalf of a friends at a breast and ovarian cancer support organization... We're trying to improve our web site's results in search engines. I've been reading up on SEO and learning that it's wise to optimize for more specialized keywords rather than for highly competitive keywords (e.g., "triple negative breast cancer," instead of "breast cancer"). Practically speaking, how does this work when you're optimizing content? Does "triple negative breast cancer" need to appear multiple times in the page's content and is there an optimal place on the page where it should appear? Do keyword tags actually work, or should we not even bother spending time on adding them? How about title tags and description metatags? Will they help with search results? I know that increasing the number of outside links makes a difference, but will it help if I provide links from one page on our web site to another? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Event360300 -
Value of an embedded site vs. a direct link?
We have a new site that is a great resource for a serious subject (suicide). I have been getting many requests from various communities and clinics about help on embedding our site in their websites. Although I certainly don't want to keep this resource from being used as much as possible, I am curious about the SEO costs/benefit to having someone embed our site on their own website rather than provide a link to our website directly from theirs.
Technical SEO | | ron_adease1 -
No crawl code for pages of helpful links vs. no follow code on each link?
Our college website has many "owners" who want pages of "helpful links" resulting in a large number of outbound links. If we add code to the pages to prevent them from being crawled, will that be just as effective as making every individual link no follow?
Technical SEO | | LAJN0 -
Is using splash pages considered cloaking?
For example I'm thinking of running people through a squeeze page when they come from search engines (for first time visitors only/cookied) ... example: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ Is it going to hurt SEO? Because basically you are serving a page that is different, than the one displayed in the SERP's.
Technical SEO | | achilles130 -
CamelCase vs lowernodash
I'm in the process of reviewing on-site URL structure on a few sites, and I've run into something I can't decide between. I am forced to choose between the two examples: MediaRoom/CaseStudies.aspx (camel case) mediaroom/casestudies (all lower case, mashed, no dashes) I would personally rather see: media-room/case-studies/ However implementing the dashes would require manually re-writing about ~10,000 URLs. Implementing 301s from the existing structure to whatever I choose would be trivial, so there is no concern there. Given the choice between CamelCase and lower-mashed, which would you choose? Why?
Technical SEO | | MRCSearch0