Likelihood to Recommend
Message brokering across different systems, with transactionality and the ability to have fine tuned control over what happens using Java (or other languages), instead of a heavy, proprietary languages.One situation that it doesn't fit very well (as far as I have experienced) is when your workflow requires significant data mapping. While possible when using Java tooling, some other visual data mapping tools in other integration frameworks are easier to work with.
Engineer in EngineeringFinancial Services Company, 1001-5000 employees
Nginx is well suited for serving any static content - whether that be images, JS files, HTML files, CSS files, videos, etc. If you have a high-traffic website, Nginx will be a great fit because it handles large number of requests extremely efficiently. Nginx has full support on Unix systems, but only has limited support on Microsoft Windows machines.
- Camel has an easy learning curve. It is fairly well documented and there are about 5-6 books on Camel.
- There is a large user group and blogs devoted to all things Camel and the developers of Camel provide quick answers and have also been very quick to patch Camel, when bugs are reported.
- Camel integrates well with well known frameworks like Spring, and other middleware products like Apache Karaf and Servicemix.
- There are over 150 components for the Camel framework that help integrate with diverse software platforms.
- Camel is also good for creating microservices.
- Straight-forward configuration format that users of all skill levels can learn, and yet is powerful enough for the huge breadth of features that Nginx provides.
- Massive scale right out the box. We've never had a Nginx instance overwhelmed by requests, and if we did it would be trivial to spin up more Nginx instances to handle the load.
- SSL termination means that we can deliver content over HTTPS without needing our individual services to require TLS support. This saves us a lot of time and headache while keeping us secure.
- Nginx is open-source and free, meaning that anyone can use it to power their services, from individual projects to billion-dollar websites.
- I find the "seda" endpoint to be less obvious that it is doing multi-threading than Spring Integration's executor mechanism.
- Integration with Spring Beans is pretty good, but I believe SI's is a bit better (for obvious reasons, both being Spring products).
- SI's use support is probably a bit better/faster and I believe the user base is larger so that there are most questions/answers for SI on StackOverflow
Engineer in EngineeringDefense & Space Company, 11-50 employees
- Customer support can be strangely condescending, perhaps it's a language issue?
- I find it a little weird how the release versions used for Nginx+ aren't the same as for open source version. It can be very confusing to determine the cross-compatibility of modules, etc., because of this.
- It seems like some (most?) modules on their own site are ancient and no longer supported, so their documentation in this area needs work.
- It's difficult to navigate between nginx.com commercial site and customer support. They need to be integrated together.
- I'd love to see more work done on nginx+ monitoring without requiring logging every request. I understand that many statistics can only be derived from logs, but plenty should work without that. Logging is not an option in many environments.
No answers yet
No answers on this topic
Based on 1 answer
Front end proxy and reverse proxy of Nginx is always useful. I always prefer to Nginx in overall usability when you have application server and database or multiple application servers and single database i.e. clustered application. Nginx provides really good features and flexibility which helps the system administrator in case of troubleshooting and also from the administration perspective. Also, Nginx doesn't delay any request because of internal performance issues.
Engineer in Information TechnologyInformation Technology and Services Company, 10,001+ employees
No answers yet
No answers on this topic
Based on 10 answers
I'm explicitly rating the open-source version of NGINX here. The open-source version has good documentation and useful examples. As one of the most web servers in the world, there is a wide range of tutorials and examples to learn from. This does have the drawback of potentially using older documentation, but NGINX has excellent default behavior, and the official documentation is easy to use. Their paid support seems excellent as well, though we haven't taken advantage of it yet.
Professional in Information TechnologyHuman Resources Company, 51-200 employees
We chose Apache Camel because it was lightweight, easy to get started with and because it had a groovy DSL since we were a grails shop when we started using it.
Nginx struck the right balance for us of raw speed, power, convenience, and simplicity.
- I don't like the idea of hosting all of our open source PHP-based websites on Microsoft Windows servers with IIS, so that option was out first.
- Next, we had experience with Apache already, and were initially considering sticking with that, however it was decided that it would take too much administration time to properly configure and tune the server, especially considering it would need to occur on an ongoing basis.
- I've personally had experience with Litespeed Web Server, but we wanted something a little bit lower level--we don't need to actually manage our virtual hosts within an admin UI, and we wanted to stick with open source as much as possible. One huge benefit of Litespeed, however, is that it's .htaccess-compatible, meaning it's a much smaller transition from Apache in some cases.
- LightTPD was the closest contender to Nginx when all was said and done. We chose Nginx because some of us were more familiar with it or had some experience with it, and Nginx seemed to have more documentation and resources online for finding assistance at the time.
Return on Investment
- Apache Camel is open source and Java based. So if your engineering team is strong in Java this could be a good framework to adopt.
- Apache camel is open source.
- Camel could be run on OSGi containers like Karaf or Fuse.
Team Lead in EngineeringFinancial Services Company, 10,001+ employees
- Improved the reliability of our site. Before using Nginx, with Apache as our app server, there were times when we had to manually go in and restart Apache to bring the site back online. We've never had to do that with Nginx.
- Made our web server more memory efficient -- Nginx has a very small memory footprint, on the order of under 100 MB. This makes it suitable even for cheap VPS machines.
- The Nginx community provides online examples of configurations, so it saves us time in writing the config files from scratch.
Premium Consulting/Integration Services—
Entry-level set up fee?
Apache Camel Editions & Modules
Additional Pricing Details—
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Entry-level set up fee?
NGINX Editions & Modules
|NGINX Plus||Contact sales team1|
|NGINX Controller||Contact sales team|
|NGINX App Protect||Contact sales team|
|NGINX Amplify||Contact sales team|
- per instance/enterprise pricing available