Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
From what I understand, Apache (or Nginx) has been the server of choice (as well as it being installed as part of LAMP/WAMP/MAMP packages). However, the current installation instructions for Symfony (2.6) recommend using the built-in PHP webserver.
From what I understand, this has been in active development since php 5.4 and is making continual improvements. Could someone help give some perspective on this switch from Apache->PHP webserver?
Is to due comparable speed/efficiency/security
Is it more to do with simplifying the Symfony setup (and therefore
only really to be used for development servers)?
read the warning in documentation:
http://php.net/manual/en/features.commandline.webserver.php
It is not intended to be a full-featured web server.
they don't intend to make the tool a webserver.
I recommend nginx with php-fpm
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I have a wallpaper website (almost all traffic goes to images). I use the following apps to serve.
apache2 + php5.3 + CGI/FastCGI
I have recently read that Nginx is faster than Apache. Also, many people advise using php-fpm. Do you recommend me to move my website to
Nginx+php-fpm
or just make
apache2 + php-fpm?
There definitely is a difference in performance of Apache and NGINX.
Both have their strongsuits and their weaknesses but in general:
If PHP has to do a lot of work Apache will actually be faster because mod_php is a part of the Apache itself and is really good integrated.
The additional (f)cgi takes some time too when using Nginx and thus making it slower on PHP-heavy applications.
Conclusion
Do you only want to serve a lot of static data (like images) you are better of with NGINX, because if excells on static content.
--> In your case I'd go with NGINX...don't forget to make good use of NGINX' caching-mechanisms!
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I have a VDS(Virtual Dedicated Server) that Windows Server 2003 is installed on it. I want to use php and MySQL on my VDS. I have two options: 1-install wamp server as a web server or 2-install iis and then use php and MySQL on iis.
Which one do you suggest me to use?
Wamp is a great tool for development but it's not very secure and fast for production.
In my opinion, on Windows the best option is IIS, faster and more secure.
You can easily find some tests by searching on Internet :
https://groups.drupal.org/node/234373
I recommand wamp, more stable and efficient.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I am classic asp developer, now shifting to PHP, MySQL development. I am using windows OS for my development. I don't want shift on Linux ( this is personal choice , I don't want to get in debate of windows vs Linux ) .
I tried to install php and other stuff on IIS , I am slowly turning towards frameworks like Laravel.
So, is it good to use php under IIS than apache , what difference will it make if I dont use apache ..
EDIT
i just want know, will some feature will disabled under iis, and what will be difference for execution of php script under iis ,
There is no reason to use IIS with PHP. Apache is much easier to set up and much closer to any shared hosting environment you are likely to run your code on. I used to use IIS for my dev and it always drove me crazy.
I installed Apache on windows and I've never looked back.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
Particularly, for PHP development, which one performs better? I'd like to deploy a Zend Framework 1.X app on the chosen platform. Which one makes this easier/possible?
One thing I particularly love about Pagodabox is how they "force" you to use git (or some other version control system). I know you probably wouldn't use either GAE of PB for trivial projects, so you're probably already using some version control system. But I still think that's a nice touch of them. Plus it makes deploying that much easier.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm trying to start php development for facebook applications. I have already had some problems configuring PHP and Apache.
Today I found a tool called EasyPHP. Is it recommended to use this tool for developing php websites and in particular facebook applications?
EasyPHP is a perfectly good solution as far as I'm aware, but I've never used it myself so I couldn't recommend it. I use XAMPP, but it's all down to personal preference.
It's probably worth taking a look at this question on SO, or this Wiki article comparing WAMPs.
xampp
XAMPP is an easy to install Apache distribution containing MySQL, PHP
and Perl. XAMPP is really very easy to install and to use - just
download, extract and start.
wamp for windows, mamp for mac, thats what I reccommend.
I'm using Visual-AMP, It's like the IIS.
WAMP, MySQL and pretty much any IDE.
Just follow the online instructions.
WAMP includes all the tools and extensions you'll need without needing to mess around with config files