Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Apache HTTP Server vs Caddy: What are the differences?
Introduction
In this article, we will explore the key differences between Apache HTTP Server and Caddy. Apache HTTP Server and Caddy are both web server software that can be used to host websites and handle HTTP requests. While they have similar functionalities, there are several important differences between them. Let's take a closer look at these differences below.
Configuration: Apache HTTP Server uses a complex configuration file, typically written in Apache's own format or in XML, that requires manual editing and reloading the server for changes to take effect. On the other hand, Caddy uses a simple and intuitive Caddyfile, written in plaintext, making it easier for users to configure and manage their server.
Automatic HTTPS: One of the standout features of Caddy is its embedded automatic HTTPS feature. Caddy is designed to automatically provision and manage SSL/TLS certificates for websites, eliminating the need for users to manually obtain and configure certificates. In contrast, Apache HTTP Server requires users to manually obtain and configure SSL/TLS certificates.
Plugin Ecosystem: Apache HTTP Server has a vast and mature plugin ecosystem, offering a wide range of modules for various functionalities. These modules can be dynamically loaded and configured to enhance the server's capabilities. Caddy, on the other hand, has a smaller but growing plugin ecosystem, making it a more lightweight and modular choice for specific use cases.
Ease of Use: Caddy prides itself on its simplicity and ease of use. It is designed to have a minimal default configuration and focuses on providing a streamlined user experience. Apache HTTP Server, while highly customizable, often requires a steeper learning curve and more manual configuration to achieve the desired setup.
Performance: Apache HTTP Server has a long-standing reputation for high performance and can handle a large number of concurrent connections and requests. Caddy, on the other hand, is built on the Go programming language and utilizes its concurrency capabilities, resulting in efficient handling of concurrent requests. While both servers are performant, the underlying technology and design choices may make a difference in specific scenarios.
Community Support: Apache HTTP Server has a massive and well-established community, providing extensive support, documentation, and resources. The community-driven development ensures a robust and reliable product with a wealth of knowledge available to users. Caddy, being a relatively newer entrant, has a smaller community but boasts an active and passionate user base that continues to grow.
In summary, Apache HTTP Server and Caddy have distinct differences in terms of configuration, automatic HTTPS provisioning, plugin ecosystem, ease of use, performance, and community support. Understanding these differences can help users make an informed decision about which web server software best suits their specific requirements.
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 Caddy
- Easy HTTP/2 Server Push6
- Sane config file syntax6
- Builtin HTTPS4
- Letsencrypt support2
- Runtime config API2
Cons of Caddy
- New kid3