Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Apache HTTP Server vs Unicorn: What are the differences?
Introduction
Apache HTTP Server and Unicorn are two popular web servers that are used to serve web content. While both of them are designed to handle HTTP requests and deliver web pages to clients, there are several key differences between the two. In this article, we will explore these differences and compare Apache HTTP Server and Unicorn.
Concurrency Model: One of the major differences between Apache HTTP Server and Unicorn is their concurrency model. Apache uses a process-based model, where each incoming request is handled by a separate process or thread. This allows Apache to handle multiple requests simultaneously but can consume a significant amount of system resources. On the other hand, Unicorn uses a single-threaded, event-driven model, where a single process can handle multiple requests concurrently using non-blocking I/O. This makes Unicorn more memory-efficient and capable of handling a large number of concurrent requests.
Operating System Compatibility: Apache HTTP Server is compatible with a wide range of operating systems, including Windows, macOS, and various Unix-like systems. This makes it a versatile choice for different server setups. On the other hand, Unicorn is primarily designed for Unix-like systems, such as Linux and macOS. While it can technically run on Windows with additional tools, its native support is limited compared to Apache.
Configuration and Extensibility: Apache HTTP Server provides a highly configurable and extensible architecture. It offers a flexible configuration file format and supports various modules that can enhance its functionality, such as modrewrite for URL rewriting or modssl for HTTPS support. Unicorn, on the other hand, has a simpler configuration process and provides less extensibility options compared to Apache. It focuses on providing a streamlined and lightweight server for Ruby web applications.
Scalability: When it comes to scalability, Apache HTTP Server is known for its robust performance and ability to handle high traffic loads. It has been extensively tested and optimized for scalability, making it a suitable choice for large-scale deployments. Unicorn, while capable of handling a significant number of concurrent connections, may not scale as well as Apache and may require additional tuning or load balancing solutions for highly demanding environments.
Application Compatibility: Another significant difference between Apache HTTP Server and Unicorn is their application compatibility. Apache is a general-purpose web server that can host various types of web applications, including those written in different languages such as PHP, Python, or Java. It can handle different application frameworks and provide support for common web standards. Unicorn, on the other hand, is specifically designed for Ruby web applications and focuses on providing high-performance and streamlined support for Ruby-based frameworks like Ruby on Rails.
Popularity and Community Support: Apache HTTP Server has a long history and is widely used by a large community of developers and system administrators. It has a robust ecosystem, extensive documentation, and strong community support. Unicorn, while still popular within the Ruby on Rails community, may not have the same level of widespread adoption and community support as Apache.
In summary, Apache HTTP Server and Unicorn differ in terms of their concurrency model, operating system compatibility, configuration and extensibility, scalability, application compatibility, and popularity/community support. These differences make them suitable for different use cases and environments.
I have an integration service that pulls data from third party systems saves it and returns it to the user of the service. We can pull large data sets with the service and response JSON can go up to 5MB with gzip compression. I currently use Rails 6 and Ruby 2.7.2 and Puma web server. Slow clients tend to prevent other users from accessing the system. Am considering a switch to Unicorn.
Consider trying to use puma workers first. puma -w basically. That will launch multiple puma processes to manage the requests, like unicorn, but also run threads within those processes. You can turn the number of workers and number of threads to find the right memory footprint / request per second balance.
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
For us, NGINX is a lite HTTP server easy to configure. On our research, we found a well-documented software we a lot of support from the community.
We have been using it alongside tools like certbot and it has been a total success.
We can easily configure our sites and have a folder for available vs enabled sites, and with the nginx -t command we can easily check everything is running fine.
- 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 Unicorn
- Fast81
- Performance59
- Web server36
- Very light30
- Open Source30
- Rack http server27
- Load balancing18
- Great process management14
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Apache HTTP Server
- Hard to set up4
Cons of Unicorn
- Not multithreaded4
Sign up to add or upvote consMake informed product decisions
What is Apache HTTP Server?
What is Unicorn?
Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
What companies use Apache HTTP Server?
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
What tools integrate with Apache HTTP Server?
What tools integrate with Unicorn?
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions
Blog Posts
+44