Apache Web Server Reviews

I have used it for PHP web servers and also as a proxy for Java application servers. I have used the Apache model for the Java infrastructure.

Its community is its most valuable feature. Solving problems is easier on Apache because so many people know this product. It's the most iconic, used web server in the world that I know.

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.

Five years.

It is stable.

With Apache, you can't update the system. There is a big gap between models. I don't like this.

You can do it in a cluster configuration, and it is very scalable.

We have 5,000 users.

I have not used the technical support.

I have used a number of servers. Previously, I used NGINX. I switched to Apache because it has model and is more flexible.

The initial setup is easy.

It took 15 minutes to deploy.

I deployed the solution myself.

I would recommend the solution to others.

I would rate this solution as a nine (out of 10).

On-premises

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.  

On-premises

I am currently using Apache Web Server and it is integrated with Apache JMeter and Tomcat. I run these solutions in a virtualized environment that is in a private cloud, on-premises.

We are a solution provider and our primary use case is creating web servers on core banking systems. 

The best thing about Apache is that it is open-source, so implementing my platform on-premises is less expansive than other solutions.

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.

I have been working with Apache Web Server for ten years.

This is a stable solution. One of the people I know is the system administrator of some systems that I have deployed in the past, and those systems are stable today.

Being in Iran, we do not have access to technical support because of sanctions. However, we have been able to solve any problems ourselves.

The initial setup is straightforward. If you are just learning or reading about this solution, the decisions to make are not very complex.

The first point of using these services is that you have to use scripts for deploying the web servers on the systems. They can be effectively used in many platforms and deployed for heavy duties, but tuning and improving them requires some work. Automating with scripts will help to save some time.

My advice to anybody who is implementing this solution is to deploy it on a Linux-based server and follow the best practices. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

On-premises

Depending on what operating system you are using, you can have a website up in no time using Apache web server. Very easy to install on multiple platforms.90% of our web servers are using Apache, I like the fact that there is no management interface, so that we can minimize system resources when it comes to large scale deployments.As Apache is opensource the community is great when it comes to documentation and troubleshooting problems.

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.

From experience I have found that Apache runs smoothly and a lot faster on Ubuntu.

The Apache Web Server is our software of choice for running our web servers for the past seven (7) years. It's clearly one of the best open-source projects in world, as its continuing existence and use is a testament to how great this software is.There have been numerous web server software that has come out in the recent years like Nginx and lhttpd, but the Apache web server has remained as the web server of choice for a lot of organizations world-wide.What I like about the Apache Web Server is that it just simply works. It's very easy to set-up and configure, and you can have a website up in a few minutes. Furthermore, it supports a lot of web scripting languages which even made it more popular.

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.

For simple websites, the Apache web server is easy to install and configure. It can even be configured with web hosting panels. However, configuring the Apache web server from the command line is recommended for complex applications like virtual hosting.

The Software is free. A few important features in the long list include: stability - it's continuously supported by the open source community, reducing the bugs and errors. portability - Apache is available for multiple OS Customizability - custom modules can be built easily. Efficient handling of client requests. Most popular webserver on the internet.

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.

The webserver survey showed by netcraft [netcraft.com] says, "Apache is still the most widely used [61%] webserver in the world of internet." Apache is designed in such a way that different components of the system can be connected together easily. The beauty is that you can replace or add a component or feature without affecting the system. Apache is a powerful tool with which you can make it do just about anything you need. As there are multiple masterminds taking caring of Apache, it will remain the king of webservers for long!