NGINX Caching

Ryan Malayter malayter at
Mon Apr 19 17:08:07 MSD 2010

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Ryan Malayter <malayter at> wrote:
>> There are plenty of fast HTTP servers written in interpreted languages.
>> In fact, I can not think of a single example that has your described
>> limitations nor what these suggested limitations may have to do with
>> HTTP versus FastCGI.   The slowness of the application will matter far
>> more than the protocol used.

Anecdotal benchmarks showing FastCGI > HTTP for Ruby applications:

Of course, simpler is better, so you should probably minimize change
when moving to nginx. Cliff is of course correct: the proxy protocol
is the least of your performance worries. If you don't have or foresee
scalability issues, and are comfortable with the
performance/limitations/security of whatever back-end HTTP server
you're using for Perl, then stick with that instead of moving to
something new and unfamiliar.

We use nginx as an HTTP proxy in front of IIS and Tomcat at high load,
because those two are the amongst the best environments for serving
.NET and Java-based web applications respectively. We use FastCGI for
our PHP applications.

More information about the nginx mailing list