Apache Web Server Reviews

I am currently working with Apache Web Server in my projects because I'm an architect. Some years ago, it was the application server and the web server; it was Apache Daemon and Apache, the web server and the application server. I have years of experience working with that kind of middleware. Because right now we are working with Spring and the application servers are integrated, such as Netty or Jetty, but all of them spawn from Apache Tomcat.

I have worked with the web server and Tomcat for many years in the past, but right now, as I mentioned, it is not a direct use. I am not managing it; it is under the hood. It is managed by the framework itself. So the use is implicit, but I might use it without noticing in some containers or images I use, Docker or Kubernetes, but I am not certain. I have extensive knowledge of that.

In the past, I used Apache Web Server in J2EE and JEE architectures, not because it does not support the complete spec, but for some parts of that or some simpler web applications, MVC projects, smaller ones, or auxiliary projects, or later on, as the basis for my Spring application, before Spring Boot dominated the market in the implementations. It was more or less for smaller web applications; most of them were standalone.

I find valuable and beneficial the independence that comes with Apache Web Server. You can build a small project using a simple application server without bothering too much about how to manage it.

The compatibility with multiple operating systems has helped my operations since most of the time we use Linux. Some systems rely on Windows, but they are few; in the past, Windows was the dominant operating system for mainstream PCs and infrastructure, but not for business. All the companies I worked for had 90% Linux and maybe up to 10% Windows.

The initial setup of Apache Web Server was straightforward and okay.

I would like to see improvements in the functionality and core of Apache Web Server, focusing on building an infrastructure that can be resilient and robust enough to handle resource shortages, and fast enough in edge cases without crashing under too much traffic during spikes. Application servers must now handle how they collaborate with virtual machines and virtualizers without virtualizing themselves over another layer.

I have been working with Apache Web Server for more than fifteen years.

I think the performance and scalability aspect of Apache Web Server is something that is achieved using orchestrators or tools such as Kubernetes, managed Kubernetes such as OpenShift, or various cloud solutions. However, I would not implement too many application servers; it would be much too customized, and after two or three years, everyone would forget how it works.

I have never escalated any questions to Apache tech support; if I needed help, I usually asked for assistance in wikis and open communities, where I received simple answers.

For Tomcat, there was no need for official support as I worked on large applications mainly using heavyweight application servers for which we had support.

Neutral

I have worked with other application servers such as JEE large application servers, mainly WebLogic or JBoss, and in some projects with IBM's implementation of the JEE spec. IBM has its own ecosystem, which is versioned to accommodate its needs, but it is inevitable that big companies cannot dominate the market anymore.

There are no fees associated with the usage of Apache Web Server in my projects. If you want to have support, then there is some cost, but today I do not know how many companies pay for that service. Application servers have lost their status but remain important; however, they must be less expensive, more efficient, simpler, and adaptable.

Overall, I assess the configurability of Apache Web Server for optimizing performance and security aspects as acceptable; nowadays, security is on another level. At that time, it was decent for simple, insecure services, with only the concern of someone hacking the system. Today, it is much more severe; you could cause a lot of harm to many different applications without noticing. If I had to create an application using Apache Tomcat again, I would use a lot of other things, not Apache's security modules and functionalities, but authorization services and other security measures.

I prefer to stay away from big players such as Oracle and IBM because in the long run, you are bound to their systems. While I can recommend Apache Web Server, especially for simple implementations and administration tools, I advise keeping it on straightforward, simple machines without requiring much service or maintenance. I rate this product an eight overall.

Neutral

I use the solution in my company as a base server. Many of our company's applications are hosted on Apache Web Server. As an open-source WAF, my company uses Apache Web Server with ModSecurity. My company also uses Apache Web Server as a proxy manager.

The most valuable features of the solution stem from the installation part and configuration manager that I use the most.

When it comes to Apache Web Server, I don't have any suggestions for improvement because we use it in the UAT environment. For production, my company mainly uses NGINX.

There is no direct package provided by the product if I want to use WAF. In NGINX, NGINX Plus has the signature update capability, but in Apache, the same feature is not available, making it an area where improvements are required.

If WAF can be introduced in Apache Web Server, it would be a good improvement so that its users can implement either the WAF module or ModSecurity, as they choose.

For NGINX, I think it has NGINX Management Suite, which is GUI-based and allows you to manage your configuration via the user interface, but Apache fails to offer such capabilities to users.

Apache Web Server should provide users with the same capabilities offered under NGINX Management Suite with the help of a simple GUI so that our company doesn't have to do anything on the terminal while directly getting to use the user interface, which can help us with the configuration part.

I have been using Apache Web Server for more than five years.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

My company does not have to deal with many volumes on Apache Web Server since we use it in a UAT environment and not in production,

Around 1,500 people in my company use the product.

My company plans to increase the usage of the product in the future.

My company receives technical support from Apache, along with community support. I think it's a very old web server that is older than NGINX.

From a technical support perspective, users can get a lot of stuff related to the product and access Apache's online community support.

The product's initial setup phase is straightforward.

The product's deployment phase is easy for me because if I want to install it, then I need to pay the price for the solution, and it's easy and similar to NGINX. In general, deployment and installation are easy processes.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model. My company has a private cloud infrastructure, which is not AWS or GCP.

The price of the product is an area handled by the procurement team in my company.

In terms of scalability and performance, I would say that the performance is similar to NGINX. Right now, we are not using the tool in relation to our company's traffic. The tool is fine, but I haven't tried to use it much for the traffic part if I compare it with NGINX.

When it comes to modularity, for the configuration part, there is a separate module users can create for each of the shared applications, which is similar to what NGINX offers.

The product's security features are reliable, especially since Apache provides ModSecurity for HSTS. You can overcome the need for most of the security headers if you add ModSecurity packaged with Apache, which is fine for our company.

I recommend the product to beginners who want a simple base server in their company for security purposes. I have to pay if I go with ModSecurity in NGINX. If I am a beginner who wants to secure my application, then I need to choose Apache Web Server since it offers ModSecurity for free.

The benefit of the use of the product stems from the capability it provides in the form of the security module, which is called ModSecurity. For NGINX, if you want to integrate ModSecurity, it comes across as a very lengthy module. If you talk about Apache, it is very easy. I think Apache offers unique features.

Apache Web Server offers modular configuration. On multiple websites, you can host multiple domains, and it also offers the capability of modularity, which allows you to create multiple configuration modules on separate web applications.

Apache Web Server is available as an open-source tool. In the product, you can get a free signature update for the database which is the most vulnerable, and you will get an update if you are using ModSecurity. Users also get community support.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

I was administering the web server. 

Most of the features I liked were related to the performance during peak hours. Because I needed to optimize the Apache web server to run it as a high performer during my customers' usage, then I needed to reduce my Apache web server resource usage for that. So that part of the thing is what I was more interested in doing.

So, I mainly liked the performance and security.

Enhanced security features would be great. In future releases, I would like to see better server optimization.

I have over a year of experience with Apache. I worked with Apache v2.4. We installed it as a package through DNS. So, whatever was presented in the package, those packages in the OS that we used to install.

Stability, Compared to other open source web Server, Apache web server is a top one on our Internet. And if I opt for an open source web server you would go with, I would choose Apache web server, and the other one is NGINX. 

But I prefer Apache because of its flexibility and easy configuration. Also, NGINX has a load balancer, which is just a part of things.

Scalability is great. So it would even be better to run the web server in Container vault. So whenever we need to, we can scale up and scale down the Apache web server based on our usage. So, scalability is fine one. Placing the web server in Kubernetes. 

It's the only web server we have been using as of wherever I go.

I would rate my experience with the initial setup a ten out of ten, with ten being very easy to set up. 

It is deployed both on-premises and cloud. The deployment time depends on the requirements and the customer's environment. If it is only local and country-wide, it will only take two to three days.

We took a consultant's help. However, I handled the deployment on my own. 

The team is available; that's also fine. So far, I have to do it on my own only.

For maintenance, a single person per shift is required. Per day, I would suggest to have three shifts.

Some free licenses come under that Apache license. So I don't think we need to pay anything for it.

I would suggest optimizing especially the performance of the web server. So wherever my website is forecasting, it should be able to load as much as possible, and then security. I should log the IP addresses of whoever try to access my website information and probe my web content properly. So, I would block those.  I would suggest performance and security are what you need to take care of with the Apache web server.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

I mainly use it for website development. I have many websites and just stick with whatever version comes with my hosting platform.

The control panel is very easy to navigate. It's similar to most hosting platforms, so it's user-friendly. Once you get used to it, managing your hosting becomes easy, too.

The major issue occurs with ports. So, I would like to see easier port management.

Changing ports might be tricky for beginners. Maybe making port numbers easier to understand could be helpful.

I have been using it for over five to eight years now. 

It is a stable product. I haven't had any major crashes. I'm actually considering moving it to AWS to learn more about cloud deployment, but on-premises has been reliable so far.

I just have to manage the solution. 

It's definitely scalable. However, I mainly use it for my own personal projects, so it's just me.

For me, it's okay because I'm experienced with it. But changing ports might be tricky for beginners. Maybe making port numbers easier to understand could be helpful.

The setup was straightforward, and I didn't need any help. I did it myself.

I already had everything installed on my machine. I zipped my files and uploaded them to the server. Like, configured it for my specific needs.

I see ROI in using this solution. There wouldn't be much point otherwise. It's open-source, user-friendly, and lightweight.

I only use it for private work, so I don't pay for licenses. In organizations, there is licensing.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten because I have to manage the infrastructure myself. 

I would recommend using the product if they're using it on-premises.

Apache Web Server can be used to host applications. Apache Web Server is also famously called an HTTP server which can be used in both Linux and Windows. The product has already been in the industry for 25 years. When an individual installs the Linux operating system, Apache Web Server comes in-built. But the solution can also be installed directly without any cost. 

Apache Web Server is itself a complete product for applications. There are endless features in the solution. The HTTP server characteristics of the solution are a vital feature. The Apache Web Server can be used to create an in-house application server. The product can also be used to build a website. WordPress and PHP sites also require Apache Web Server to operate. 

Apache Web Server can be used as a proxy server and some applications can only run on an Apache Web Server. 

There isn't a dedicated customer support available for Apache Web Server. 

I have been using Apache Web Server for three to four years. 

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. 

The solution is highly scalable. Depending on the available resources, a user can create a specific number of instances for scalability. Our company has more than a thousand users of Apache Web Server, including professionals and customers. 

As it is an open-source solution, there isn't dedicated support available, but support can availed through the community of Apache Web Server, where contributors can assist a user. There are also forums to check for solutions to specific issues with Apache Web Server. If you buy a Red Hat subscription, sometimes Red Hat can provide tech support on behalf of Apache Web Server. 

The initial setup of Apache Web Server is extremely straightforward. The solution's deployment process can be completed in a few minutes. The deployment process depends on how the application is designed. For example, if you are designing an application that only renders static web pages, then the design will be unique.

If there is a digital library of books and people are reading books in such a library, then mostly a server like Apache Web Server will host the content of the books on the application server and since everybody is trying to use the library, some of the users will be concurrently reading the same book, in that case a caching server is needed to help in load balancing. For the aforementioned example on libraries, the Apache Web Server can be used for the FTP to allow users to download or upload files and perform session tracking. 

Apache Web Server is a time-tested product and is one of the primary choices of all application users. You can install a web application within the Apache Web Server and then the applications run in the solution allowing you to access the application via a browser. For instance, when you open Gmail, which is an application running on an Apache Web Server, the server displays the webpage and provides a response based on your inputs. 

Apache Web Server has several in-built modules, and each module needs to be configured within the solution. For example, if you want to use the product as a proxy server, you need to configure the proxy configuration, and if you want to use it as a caching server, you can configure it for caching purposes.

Apache also provides a dedicated web server for Java applications known as Apache Tomcat. Due to their wide use cases, Apache products are used by almost every organization. Anywhere you want to use and host web applications, Apache Web Server can be used. There is a widely used platform called LAMP, which is created using Linux, Apache, MySQL, and PHP. 

Beginner level learners of application development and designing are also using Apache Web Server. Nowadays, in some cases, Apache Web Servers are being used as load balancers. For instance, suppose there are five to six servers in your organization, and you want to divide the load among those servers; let's assume ten requests must be divided among the servers. In the aforementioned case, you will route the incoming requests across the servers in two batches of five requests to balance the load so that one server doesn't get immensely loaded. 

There are two segments of security provided by the Apache Web Server; one is inside the network, while the other one is outside. If a request has arrived within the application, then it's the user's responsibility to secure the application, and it's usually managed using the concept of militarized zone and de-militarized zone.

All the application servers are kept within the militarized zone and to allow public users access to the application, a proxy server or load balancer is used as an interface between the users and the servers which are present within the militarized zone. Therefore, one shouldn't completely rely on a web configuration to manage the complete security because security is multi-level, involving the network level, application level and user level.   

Professionals often use a combination of servers for different use cases; while someone might use Apache for load balancing, another individual might use NGINX for the same purpose, and this preference often depends upon the professional's expertise in the solutions. I would rate Apache Web Server as nine out of ten. 

I would definitely recommend others to use Apache Web Server as it's an excellent solution, and they should learn about specific use cases that can be addressed using Apache Web Server. There is reliable documentation available for Apache that includes information on core enhancements and new modules, including modules for functionality enhancement in Apache Web Server. The vendor continues to enhance the Apache Web Server by introducing new modules. 

Apache Web Server handles traffic efficiently without the need for many configuration adjustments, depending on the cases in which the configuration is primarily implemented. 

As the solution is open-source, it's always open to anyone who wants to use and learn about Apache Web Server. A beginner can also use it for pilot deployments or user application testing, but for advanced use, one needs to learn about Apache Web Server completely, including its modules, features, and functionality. If someone wants to buy Apache Web Server then it can be bought directly from Red Hat, they sell Apache Web Server as a bundle component when one buys the JBoss platform. 

We use it for hosting applications.

The open-source nature is one of its most significant advantages. As a community-driven product, it captures the collective knowledge of developers. Any challenges that arise are typically resolved within a short period, thanks to the readily available solutions from the community.

The interface has room for improvement.

I have been using it for approximately ten years.

It offers good stability capabilities.

It provides excellent scalability.

While the overall support is excellent, I encountered a specific challenge when implementing Apache Superset on an Azure VM. There was a scarcity of articles or solutions tailored to this implementation, especially for those who have adopted Azure. I would rate it five out of ten.

Neutral

The absence of a straightforward, one-way installation procedure adds complexity. Instead of a streamlined setup with a few clicks or steps tailored to specific team settings, the process often involves dealing with various intricacies.

Deploying applications to the cloud or dedicated endpoints can sometimes be challenging, especially if you're new to the process or dealing with complex configurations. It can be completed in two to three weeks. There are two of us handling most of the infrastructure tasks internally.

It is an open-source solution.

Overall, I would rate it ten out of ten.

We primarily use the solution to deploy the web applications we have.

The solution is very secure.

It is free to use. The solution is open-source.

We've been satisfied with the solution. 

The setup is easy.

It is scalable.

The solution has been stable.

There are lots of documentation available online.

So far, for us, everything is okay.

I've been using the solution for 15 years. 

It is very stable. I'd rate the reliability nine out of ten. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

It can scale well. 

We have 100 users using it in our company. We do have plans to increase usage if the number of employees increases. 

We've never reached out to technical support. There is a lot of documentation on the internet that can help you troubleshoot. 

We also have some applications built on Windows servers. We've also used Linux for two or three years. 

NGINX might be a good alternative to Apache as well.

We can deploy the solution within two hours. It is easy to set up. The implementation is not complex. 

We simply install the related packages and set them up and secure it with security models as needed.

We only need two people to manage the setup. They are engineers. 

We are able to handle the setup in-house ourselves. We have the skills to manage it. 

The solution is free to use. 

There are some modules that do cost money. I'm not sure of the exact price of the solution. 

I did not evaluate other options beforehand.

I'm not sure of the exact version of the solution. It's around version two. It might be 2.4 or 2.6.

I'd recommend the solution to others. Depending on the use case, I'd encourage people to use the Apache security models and to use various proxies. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. 

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.

We use the tool for our human resource solution. 

The product is very cheap and stable. 

I want the user interface to be more user-friendly. 

I have been using the solution for ten years. 

The tool is stable. 

The product is scalable. My company has 500 users for the tool. 

The tool's setup is easy. The product's deployment took one week to complete. You need one engineer for the tool's deployment. 

The software's deployment is done in-house. 

I would rate the tool a ten out of ten.