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.  

View full review »

So far, for us, everything is okay.

View full review »

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.

View full review »

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

View full review »

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.

View full review »

The interface has room for improvement.

View full review »

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.

View full review »

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

View full review »

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

View full review »

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.

View full review »

The solution's stability needs improvement.

View full review »

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. 

View full review »

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.

View full review »

The improvement can be done in the versions. Even though there are newer, stabler versions available, if you are installing from a data center, you have to install the older version. Then, installing the newer version is uncomfortable as it has to be done manually.

A monitoring interface would be great for this product. The monitoring dashboards for Apache's models are not included in the basic installation. You can install the basic monitoring model, then connect this model to another monitoring system.

View full review »

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.

View full review »

If Apache master the ability of hosting websites/web apps that use Microsoft's .Net framework then it will definitely be the best web server to use.Internally we have both Microsoft IIS web servers and Apache web servers. We only use IIS for web sites that are developed in .net, for any other website written in php, perl, java (also many more) we use Apache.For anyone who is looking to host websites or proxy servers, I advise you to use Apache, also there's no cost - only for the hardware of the machine that you are running it from. View full review »

Better integration with other environments is needed.

It would be great if technical support for Apache were available in Iran. It is a very important need.

View full review »

The only thing that gives me a frown about the Apache Web Server is the command-line configuration. Though it can be configured via web control panels like webmin, you really have to dig deep into the configuration files to really make apache work.The Apache Web Server is undoubtedly one of the best web server software in the world. What's even better is that it's free and remains free even after years of existing. Truly one of the most successful open-source projects ever. View full review »

No support is available from Apache software foundation. Apache needs fine tuning of its components when in a larger environment, otherwise it can make your server unresponsive. View full review »