upvote

points

by hannob4 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby account422 hours ago|
next
[-]
I would say that's actually a misfeature as it requires too many additional filesystem lookups to fulfil requests.

Modifying the web server config is a nonissue outside of shared hosting, which should have died out with the advent of VMs/containers.

reply
upvoteby jagged-chisel1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> … too many additional filesystem lookups …

Caching is a thing. Only dump the cache when a changed is noticed.

reply
upvoteby canibalrex1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
And now you have 2 problems..
reply
upvoteby Alghranokk3 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Does not Microsoft's IIS also have that with web.config files?
reply
upvoteby joseda-hg54 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Yes, but then you're dealing with IIS and why would you want that?
reply
upvoteby ransom15383 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Eh. You can use .htaccess in nginx too. I use that everyday.
reply
upvoteby cyphar2 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Ah yes, htaccess. Another lovely source of security bugs for the past 30 years and may it continue to bear skiddie fruit for another 300.

Its model is fundamentally flawed precisely because it was based on the fundamentally flawed PHP model (website assets and code are stored and hosted from the same webroot). This allowed for shared hosting to exist but containers and reverse proxies are a far better way of organising such sites today.

The fact that in other webservers the server's configuration is configured through its configuration file and not the content of its webroot is a feature.

reply
upvoteby anonreplier1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Yes apache has a config file too amazingly enough, .htaccess is optional
reply
upvoteby cyphar1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The point I was making is that having alternative sources of configuration (coming from the contents being served no less) is a misfeature.

Really not sure how one could possibly read my comment as me saying htaccess is the only way of configuring Apache?

reply
upvoteby system24 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
PHP can go to hell. My hair is gray because of it. Nginx is superior, and I can get anything imaginable done with config files. And not to mention, it's much faster.
reply
upvoteby ezst3 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The http servers drag race finished 15 years ago on a tie, it's really much a matter of taste and familiarity more than performance at this point.
reply
upvoteby arcanemachiner2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The lazy bastard in me prefers Caddy.
reply
upvoteby theandrewbailey1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I don't understand this. NGINX can run PHP. PHP is not exclusive to Apache.
reply
upvoteby Joel_Mckay1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
In general, the Apache php mod has had less drama than php-fpm over the years. Also, casting each domain under specific isolated itk server user(s) account(s) adds a layer of containment, where Nginx processes must run under a single user context.

Nginx uses way less memory in most use-cases (1/4 to 1/10), but with dynamic content like php it is only slightly better (maybe 15% if lucky). Also, setting up websocket proxy in Nginx is still a bit of a bodge.

Each server type has its own trade offs, and a list of known mitigations the uninitiated must learn. If you have a single domain high-traffic site with static media files, than Nginx is probably going to matter more. =3

reply