Apache Web Server Reviews

I mainly use the product for hosting websites, content delivery, and virtual hosting.

I have been using  Apache to host my clients' web-based applications on the Internet for many years. Throughout this time, Apache has proven to be incredibly reliable, and everything has operated smoothly without encountering any issues. 

The web server has been highly valuable, stable, and it has been bug-free.

In terms of improvement, Apache should work better with modern cloud and proxy systems like Kubernetes. Right now, it is not very compatible with them. Additionally, adding a reverse proxy to Apache Web Server would be a significant improvement.

I have been using Apache Web Server for quite some time.

It is a very stable product. I would give it a ten out of ten for stability.

Scalability is a huge problem for Apache. I would rate it a one out of ten.

Apache has good community support, but there is a lack of corporate support options.

The initial setup is simple.

I have definitely seen ROI with Apache.

Apache is free.

I would definitely recommend Apache Web Server to anyone who is considering using it. Overall, I would rate it a ten out of ten.

I use Apache Web Server to build websites.

Apache Web Server is free of cost.

The product's initial setup process could be easier for users. 

We are using Apache Web Server’s version 2.4.57.

I rate the platform’s stability a ten out of ten.

Apache Web Server’s initial setup process is complex for users. However, it is straightforward for server administrators. It takes a few minutes to complete.

We have implemented the product with the help of our in-house team.

There is no licensing cost for the product. It is free to use.

I rate Apache Web Server a ten out of ten. I did an online course to learn how to use the product. I recommend it to users who want to build websites.

It is utilized as a simple web server, meaning you can configure it and use the HTTP or HTTPS protocol. This is the secure version of the HTTP protocol to host or manage the connections from users who want to access the web application, from the internet, and from our local users.

The modularity of the application is good. It allows us to use a modular approach, meaning that not all features are hard-coded inside the application, but we can use modules so that these features can be enabled or disabled. If we don't want to use some features, we don't load or enable them inside the configuration file.

Nginx is another web server solution that can be used as an accelerator when you want a high-performance web server. Nginx can also be used as a reverse proxy and a cache server to accelerate the response times for all users. If we compare Nginx with Apache Web Server, Apache Web Server cannot be used when high performance is the key feature of your application. If we want to handle many users, choosing Nginx rather than the Apache Web Server is better. However, when you want to scale the application, it is not as good as Nginx and Nginx can handle more users than the Apache Web Server.

We have been using this solution for a long time. We use it to deploy servers that host websites. We are using the latest version. It is deployed on-premises.

It's very stable, and it hosts one of the biggest of many biggest web applications in the world. It is used widely by many companies. Since they are still using it, I think it's still stable, and we don't have a problem with our application when they're using the Apache Web Server.

Apache can be scalable, but not by using a native feature of Apache. Instead, you have to rely on other tools to set the scalability feature. This is the same for Nginx.

They have community support. It's an organization that handles some open-source because Apache Web Server is a project handled and maintained by the company organization or the Apache Foundation. They maintain the source code and versions. We don't create a ticket with the Apache Foundation, but we will rely on a large community of experts.

The initial setup was straightforward and depended on the operating system. If it's Windows, it is simple when installing. On Linux, it's also straightforward, especially if you want to use specific packages. For example, if you are using Central West Linux or Uganda, they provide a package specific to that distribution. So with a simple command, you can install the Apache Web Server, and all its dependencies will be installed as well.

The configuration is complicated compared to the installation. However, if you need a lot of knowledge about the HTTP protocol, how websites work, and how each module of Apache can work or talk with other modules, it is handled by the core service of the attachable server. The configuration is done by the person or department that deploys the application in the server, so they configure the Apache Web Server.

Maintaining requires two people, myself and another colleague. If another company develops an application, it will maintain the Apache Web Server. But we only maintain the operating system, installing updates and system configurations. But the maintenance of the Apache Web Server and the work application is made by that company, not us.

There is no licensing cost because it is open source.

Regarding web services, two major web servers are available, IIS from Microsoft Windows and Apache Web Server. They are the most used web services all over the world. There is also Nginx. Each service has its scenarios of when it will be used. For small to medium size projects in an organization, they can use Apache Web Server or IIS, but if you want something very powerful, you can switch to Nginx.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. Regarding advice, there is a security-related problem that depends on the web server's configuration. If you install the web server, it works, and you can put your web application in a directory that Apache Web Server reads from to display the web application.

The default installation comes with a default configuration. With default configuration comes security flaws, so you need to set permissions in the configuration file in your website directory. Before you deploy your application with Apache Web Server, you need to know how to configure a web server, how the HTTP protocol works, and how communication between the client and the server works.

If you don't know how to configure everything in a web server, sometimes your server can hang unexpectedly. Sometimes your website won't work as expected, and you will create or offer malicious persons to have access to your web server. If they have access to the web server, they can access every server in the organization because the web server is like the front door. If it's properly secured, it will be difficult for malicious people to enter your organization, but bad things can happen if it's not very secure.

Regarding features, Apache offers a module that will change the behaviour of the Apache Web Server, including some security features that will protect your application from the most used web attacks. It will act like a web firewall where you configure your Apache Web server to protect your web application from widely used attacks on the web. The feature is called Security Mode. It's a module that you can install and act as a web firewall called the WAF (Web Application Firewall), which will not only serve the client but will check their request to see or detect if they are part of an initiated attack or not.

Our primary use is as a web server, but we have other uses and how it is deployed depends on our scenario. We have 40 websites that are related to our company now, and for some of them, we have a serious problem with threats, attacks, and preventing the attacks. Because of this we often use Apache. The throughput is important for us. The locks and the reports are really important for us. Because of this, we install a Web Server with the ability to handle the reports and analysis.  

Depending on the situation and the scenario, we use different solutions. For example, with our switches, our choices depend on the access layers. In most scenarios, we have these four layers: access, distribution, aggregation, and core. If for the access layer we decide we are going to use Cisco. For the distribution layer, again we use Cisco, either the C9500 or C9300 depending on what we have planned to use it for. For the aggregation, we are going to use something from the Nexus line. The model depends on the throughput that is expected and the other choices we make. For the core, of course, again Cisco. But the model always depends on the throughput and the scenario in which we are going to use it. The C9600 is suitable for the more demanding scenarios.  

If we are going to do access with IUC (Cisco Unity Connection architecture), we are going to use a C9300 or if it is not so important for us to be so robust, we are going to use the 2960 Cisco Station. For distribution layers that use an IUC system or something that needs lots of features, we are going to use the C9500. But in some other cases, we will use the 3850 series for the distribution. For the aggregation, the throughput is calculated. We are going to use something from the Nexus series, but it depends on that throughput calculation. For the code layer, we are going to use Cisco again, but the model depends on the throughput and the scenario. If we want, we sometimes choose a different part number.  

Sometimes in the past, I had also used Huawei switches, but we mostly used them several years ago. In some situations where we calculate the throughput, it may not be suitable. For most of the projects in our country, we have limitations and regulations that control some of what we deploy. Because of that Cisco is a good solution for us. If you have limitations for providing equipment like shipping regulations or the other problems with export, we might be able to use the Huawei switches. It depends on the features, the regulations, and the throughput. They are good. I think they are very good. But now we mostly use Cisco even when we could also go with Huawei for a project.  

I think the speed and traffic handling are the most important things. It is also more secure to use Apache and will have fewer problems than other web services.  

The Apache Server and the Nginx load balancer are Linux based. This is good for our security. Windows has a lot of security issues. Maybe if we could find a good operator to configure it then it would be even more secure than the solution we use. But because of their support policies, for the intrusion and attacking defenses, cost, and throughput, we are going with the free scenarios, like Apache and Nginx. Maybe Windows is a good solution but we are not familiar with that. For a business that has other services related to Microsoft, it might be good sometimes if they used that. But we do not have other Microsoft services.  

Apache Server and the Nginx also do not require any licenses, and I think because of this that the support is not so good for us. It does not cost us money so this is a benefit for our budget. The product has a lot of experienced users and they share information. Because of this, it is possible for a company like us to find the information we need and we can use it. But the company does not have any support options in our country. We can find solutions on the websites or blogs or resources like that, but it would be nice so have a more formal support solution.  

As far as improvements, integration is important for us. So improving the possibilities and capabilities for integration is the first thing I would like to see. The other one is an improvement in implementation. The other one is improving the availability of support. I think also improving the GUI for the less experienced users. For some companies, it is hard to configure it if they have not had any experience. The setup is hard for them. For us it is not hard because we have experience with that, so we do not have any problem. But maybe changes to the GUI could be a benefit or become one of the advantages of this solution.  

We have been using some Apache servers for around three years. I have experience with them.  

In my experience, Apache Web Server has been a good and stable solution. We do not have any problems with crashes or availability. If you stay upgraded with the current version of Apache and we do our job with maintenance, we don't have any problems. With the research for security and setup, we can make this more secure than the IAS (Integrated Access Systems). Because we use this roadmap, we have not had any crashes or any problems with the system. We just know to stay aware of releases and upgrades and take care of them when required.  

In my experience, this is a scalable solution. We have 40 websites on it now and it would not be hard to do more.  

We have not been in touch with Apache technical support directly as they do not really make it available in our country. When we need more information we go find it for ourselves on the website, blogs or internet search.  

I have used other solutions for other reasons but we have only used Apache Web Server, the Nginx, Linux we are using, and the IAS (Integrated Access Systems). 

If you have any experience with the initial setup of Apache Web Server, it is not a big deal. I think it is a good solution. I know we don't have any problems with doing the setup when we have to because we have years of experience.  

In the worst-case scenario, most people can do the basic setup in maybe one day. But for experienced people like us, it takes just a couple of hours. Even if you want to make sure about the services and the security issues and do some more complicated deployment and customization, maybe one day is enough for that.  

For some of the deployments of the solution, I did it by myself. But it depends. For some of the deployment scenarios, I have a team that I use. We work together to get the bigger, more complicated installations done faster with several people.  

Apache is free but it is not free because you don't run software without a device or services. I do not know exactly. Because of the licenses and because of the prices, most of the companies go with Apache. Because the cost is so important for the companies, and because it's a free solution, most companies around — more than 65% — go with that solution.  

I have experience with Apache and configuring web services. In our country, we are using Apache for our websites because I know how to secure it. I know how to configure it. We have regulations that apply to our website in our country. The mixed solution with  Apache and Nginx that we are using works in our country. The best solution for the web servers — for the security of access — are going to come based on a mixed solution which is what Apache and Nginx together provide.  

Of course, I would recommend this service because we have had a good experience with it.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Apache Web Server as an eight.  

We use it for all our web deployments, making it our preferred choice across various projects.

The most significant advantage is the ability to swiftly enable HTTPS services when my DNS is configured correctly. This quick resolution and high performance are immensely beneficial for our operations.

By optimizing the infrastructure to allow the webserver to directly handle queries from memory—particularly by prioritizing the storage of queries in memory and processing them through the web server interface—I could potentially cut down the required instances from five hundred to two hundred. This optimization represents substantial savings, eliminating the need for deploying three hundred web servers. If we consider a time-saving of, for instance, half an hour per web server, this efficiency enhancement not only boosts performance but also decreases the total number of web server deployments.

I have been working with it for approximately fourteen years.

It's an extremely reliable web server that performs its tasks exceptionally well.

The server effortlessly scales up by spinning up new instances, making continuous operations and tasks more manageable.

The deployment process typically takes around eight minutes.

The return on investment is evident in the significant reduction in time to market and rollout. Even a saving of twenty minutes or half an hour per web server makes a notable impact.

In terms of competition, there's NGINX. It also performs admirably, and the two are quite comparable. Some individuals even rate NGINX higher than Apache.

Overall, I would rate it seven out of ten.

The solution's most valuable feature is its ability to run multiple ports on various platforms of the application with ease.

The solution's stability needs improvement.

I have been using the solution for seven years.

I rate its stability as an eight. It could be even better.

It is a scalable solution.

The solution's initial setup was straightforward. It also provides a cross-platform deployment to run it on Linux and Windows. As a beginner, the installation process took me two days to complete. But it was much easier later as I got exceptionally equipped with it. Also, deploying it on a standalone system takes a lot of work. Comparatively, I found it easy to deploy it as a module using XAMPP.

We implemented the solution in-house.

We don't have to pay for the solution's license. It is an open-source tool.

I rate the solution as an eight.

I have two use cases for Web Server; the first is for my personal use which is developing websites and the second is for the company where we provide solutions support. We are customers of Web Server and I'm a management consultant. 

The solution is open source, reliable, configurable and it's mostly secure. 

I think there are some features that could potentially be improved in Apache App Store. I'd also like to see some cloud solutions integrated with Web Server. 

I've been using this solution for 20 years. 

The initial setup is straightforward. 

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

We primarily use the solution for deployment. We use it for our internet banking portal.

The solution is very stable. It comes with good flexibility as well.

We've found the product to be scalable.

It's a solution that's fairly easy to use.

The solution offers good security.

The product has good compatibility with other solutions.

I haven't really gone in deep in utilizing the full functionality of the product just yet. We just use it enough to run our application. There's probably a lot on the solution we haven't even tried. 

It's good enough to run and deploy our application. Therefore, I can't really speak to anything that is lacking.

Things change very fast. We're always on the lookout for better approaches and tools. If the solution falls behind, we may have to switch.

Nowadays, the user actually requests to do their own maintenance instead of relying on the vendor. We're looking for something that's easy to understand for the user so that they can do their own maintenance.

I've been using the solution for about four or five years at this point. It's been a while.

The solution is extremely stable. We haven't had any issues with bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. It's been reliable.

The solution can scale if you need it to.

In our case, normally we don't do a lot of processing on the webserver. It's pretty lightweight usage.

We do pa=lan to continue to use the solution going forward.

We rarely need technical support. We might need more support when it comes to the database, however, for the web server, it's pretty problem-free. We're satisfied with the support. That said, we rarely use it.

The initial setup is not complex at all. We were able to very easily set up and deploy the solution. It was straightforward.

The deployment is very fast. Everything is smooth. The setting firewall, everything, is quick and then it just takes one or two hours to install it.

Since the setup is pretty easy, you only really need two people to deploy it.

We handled the initial setup ourselves, in-house. It's relatively simple to set up, and therefore we didn't need the assistance of any integrators or consultants.

Normally we need a team to make sure the firewall is set up properly. Installation cannot work if the firewall is not available.

We pay for the solution yearly. I cannot speak to the exact amount the organization pays as the licensing part of the solution isn't something I deal with directly.

We've tried a few different solutions. At the very beginning, we're using Tomcat Apache. After that, we switched to AWS, After AWS, we moved to this product and we've been with it ever since. 

We're just a customer. We are an end-user of Apache.

We haven't done any recent upgrades and therefore aren't likely using the latest version of the solution currently.

So far we are still exploring to see what are the best or the more cost-effective tools for us to integrate as there are so many properties we need to integrate with different protocols. So, we are still exploring, looking for the best approach.

I'd recommend the solution.

Overall, I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. We've been mostly happy with that product so far.