Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Apache HTTP Server vs Sanic: What are the differences?
## Key Differences between Apache HTTP Server and Sanic
Apache HTTP Server and Sanic are both web server software, but they differ in several key areas.
1. **Concurrency Model**: Apache HTTP Server uses a multi-threaded or multi-process model, whereas Sanic utilizes an asynchronous model based on Python's asyncio. This means Sanic is inherently more efficient in handling a large number of simultaneous connections.
2. **Performance**: Sanic is known for its high performance due to its asynchronous nature, making it a preferred choice for high-traffic applications compared to Apache HTTP Server, which may struggle with high concurrency scenarios.
3. **Deployment Complexity**: Apache HTTP Server is known for its ease of deployment and configuration, making it a popular choice for beginners. On the other hand, Sanic may require a higher level of expertise for optimal setup and tuning, especially when dealing with complex asynchronous operations.
4. **Community Support**: Apache HTTP Server has been around for a long time and has a large community of users and contributors, leading to extensive documentation and support available. Sanic, being a relatively newer framework, may have a smaller community, resulting in potentially fewer resources for troubleshooting and development assistance.
5. **Flexibility**: Apache HTTP Server offers a wide range of modules and configurations for various needs, making it highly versatile. Sanic, while powerful in its own right, may have more limitations in terms of available modules and customizations.
6. **Programming Language**: Apache HTTP Server is implemented in C, while Sanic is a Python framework. This difference in programming languages can impact performance, development speed, and ease of integration with other tools and libraries.
In Summary, Apache HTTP Server and Sanic differ in concurrency model, performance, deployment complexity, community support, flexibility, and choice of programming language.
I am diving into web development, both front and back end. I feel comfortable with administration, scripting and moderate coding in bash, Python and C++, but I am also a Windows fan (i love inner conflict). What are the votes on web servers? IIS is expensive and restrictive (has Windows adoption of open source changed this?) Apache has the history but seems to be at the root of most of my Infosec issues, and I know nothing about nginx (is it too new to rely on?). And no, I don't know what I want to do on the web explicitly, but hosting and data storage (both cloud and tape) are possibilities. Ready, aim fire!
I would pick nginx over both IIS and Apace HTTP Server any day. Combine it with docker, and as you grow maybe even traefik, and you'll have a really flexible solution for serving http content where you can take sites and projects up and down without effort, easily move it between systems and dont have to handle any dependencies on your actual local machine.
From a StackShare Community member: "We are a LAMP shop currently focused on improving web performance for our customers. We have made many front-end optimizations and now we are considering replacing Apache with nginx. I was wondering if others saw a noticeable performance gain or any other benefits by switching."
I use nginx because it is very light weight. Where Apache tries to include everything in the web server, nginx opts to have external programs/facilities take care of that so the web server can focus on efficiently serving web pages. While this can seem inefficient, it limits the number of new bugs found in the web server, which is the element that faces the client most directly.
I use nginx because its more flexible and easy to configure
I use Apache HTTP Server because it's intuitive, comprehensive, well-documented, and just works
- Server rendered HTML output from PHP is being migrated to the client as Vue.js components, future plans to provide additional content, and other new miscellaneous features all result in a substantial increase of static files needing to be served from the server. NGINX has better performance than Apache for serving static content.
- The change to NGINX will require switching from PHP to PHP-FPM resulting in a distributed architecture with a higher complexity configuration, but this is outweighed by PHP-FPM being faster than PHP for processing requests.
- The NGINX + PHP-FPM setup now allows for horizontally scaling of resources rather vertically scaling the previously combined Apache + PHP resources.
- PHP shell tasks can now efficiently be decoupled from the application reducing main application footprint and allow for scaling of tasks on an individual basis.
I was in a situation where I have to configure 40 RHEL servers 20 each for Apache HTTP Server and Tomcat server. My task was to 1. configure LVM with required logical volumes, format and mount for HTTP and Tomcat servers accordingly. 2. Install apache and tomcat. 3. Generate and apply selfsigned certs to http server. 4. Modify default ports on Tomcat to different ports. 5. Create users on RHEL for application support team. 6. other administrative tasks like, start, stop and restart HTTP and Tomcat services.
I have utilized the power of ansible for all these tasks, which made it easy and manageable.
Pros of Apache HTTP Server
- Web server479
- Most widely-used web server305
- Virtual hosting217
- Fast148
- Ssl support138
- Since 199644
- Asynchronous28
- Robust5
- Proven over many years4
- Mature2
- Perfomance2
- Perfect Support1
- Many available modules0
- Many available modules0
Pros of Sanic
- Asyncio5
- Fast2
- Easy to use server2
- Websockets1
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Apache HTTP Server
- Hard to set up4
