Apache HTTP Server has more stability and features than the other products. It is also more secure. Apache HTTP Server has a more developer base so it is easier to find resources on it.
I has a lot more features, except that IIS is more integrated in a Windows environment. But now with .net core also possible from Apache it would work anywhere really. Only in a full Windows environment where full integration is needed I would chose to go for IIS. Otherwise …
IIS has a clear advantage over Apache: Configuration can be done through a convenient visual editor. But, sometimes, IIS can be tricky to use for serving other things than asp.net.
We had bad experiences working at scale with IIS7.5 while serving PHP websites. I know that more …
The comparison with other products from IBM or Oracle is difficult. These are mostly software that has to be paid for. The only fair comparison at eye level is probably the Nginx web server: It is also free and offers even higher performance. In the meantime, there is also a …
Apache is more simple, also it tends to be more stable and it is less complicated to use, comparing with other complex solutions that are difficult to troubleshot. So wherever possible I select Apache HTTP Server for own/enterprise use also advise consumers to select the Apache …
By having a similar purpose, which is to publish and manage access to services, sites, and/or web systems, I have had to implement them to analyze their qualities and virtues, but stability, the power of implementation of different solutions and to be able to expand through own …
Apache lacks the scalability and feature set of NGINX but our team was not only far more experienced with Apache HTTP Server but was relying on tools and frameworks that required Apache HTTP Server. We've recently considered moving to NGINX but the workload to migrate and train …
Oracle WebLogic /Tuxedo is great when you are using it to install Oracle stack on top including other Oracle middleware and applications. Similarly, if you have IBM applications that need to be configured with IBM DB2, IBM WebSphere is better than Apache Web Server. Red Hat …
To be quite honest I often select Apache because it is the world's most commonly used web server and I have been using it for more than 20 years across many organizations. I have never been burned using Apache. Apache rises above IIS in functionality, configurability, and the …
Against Nginx: Mainly- it's been in the field the longest. There's not really a reason to move to Nginx on it's own. Apache has a mountain of documentation and how-tos that extend from the Foundation itself, to Individual Developers, spanning over 20 years, and most of it …
We chose Apache because it handles dynamic content better than Nginx and it's very well supported. Nginx does handle high traffic sites better, but most of our sites do not get thousands of visitors or more a day as we are a small company serving niche markets. It is notable …
Apache Web Server is the oldest among all of these above-mentioned web server solutions provide a wider range of tools and support available which is of great help when creating a web app because less investment of time and money is what contributes to the success of a project …
I have loved Apache and the brief experience I had with IIS wasn't as good. Nginx I have heard good things and though we use it heavily for our servers now without problems, I haven't configured it myself.
Apache is often used in conjunction with Nginx, with Nginx in front of Apache to serve static assets like CSS and JS. Both are easy to configure. IIS is pretty cumbersome and is not as flexible as Apache.
Keep portability. Web Server machine provides an option to the person to complete their own updates along with deploy their unique application. If live mirroring is not used, some users will have to wait for renewed content. More servers equals …
Apache is far superior to Microsoft's IIS. The only reason to consider IIS would be for compatibility with a given software package that is made exclusively for IIS.
Both NGinx and Apache are trying to accomplish the same thing, with the exception that NGinx is a much faster product. It allows for multi-threading which spreads out the traffic around the server. Apache is typically enabled by default and due to the high volume of websites …
I've used Microsoft's IIS and IBM's HTTP server. The major and a clear advantage of Apache web server over these products is that it’s free and has no licensing issues. Being in the industry for quite sometime (oldest web server) a lot of products and customizations have been …
Apache is terrific. Zeus is actually built on Apache and adds a mediocre at best interface to controlling it. IIS is only good on Windows. Netscape servers are probably not even around anymore, but when they were, were the absolute worst. I couldn't move my office off of them …
Easy to use for internal services with a simple interface and easy to understand logging. It does not offer the same extent of features as the citrix ADC netscaler however it performs its function extremely well and is easily managed
We recently had some experience with AWS Application Load Balancer, and I cay for sure it's not match for Kemp Loadmaster. Rules options are limited; configuration options are not really flexible; and learning curve is much steeper.
We use Citrix ADC's in our main office to load balance hundreds of items. This was overkill for a remote office. Kemp's Loadmaster was a great fit for the use case, at a fraction of the price.
F5 [BIG-IP] has more features, but for our requirements, Kemp [LoadMaster] had all the features we needed and was a significantly more economical option.
Setup is easier and more straight forward on the Kemp. While I am a technical person and can setup HAProxy for the client's needs, it would be difficult for the client to manage the configuration themselves.
Kemp LoadMaster is a much more reliable technology compared to its competitors. The ease of use and convenience to have it set up is one of the primary reasons to have it we choose Kemp LoadMaster over their competitors. Besides the support that we get from them is also very …
We have conducted random evaluations of other product comparison data against Kemp [LoadMaster], and are very satisfied with the [Kemp] Loadmaster product reviews. We feel strongly about the product reliability, support model, and ease of use. We have complete confidence when …
LoadMaster is a bit more professional and enterprise grade than a simple open source tool that is free of charge like HAProxy. LoadMaster fares better in Windows application environments than HAProxy, and the configuration of LoadMaster is done in a more modern way through an …
Specialized product for the purpose, better support on the first call (no wait for the second level till you found the solution on your own). In addition, we wanted to separate these services from the firewalls, so the firewall can do its job better. Last but not least, none of …
Kemp LoadMaster is easier to implement and operate, all while being less expensive. Although some competitors offer more functionality, most of our customers don't need it.
The Kemp LoadMaster outshined both of our other evaluated products, mainly in speed of setup, features available, and overall cost of ownership. In the case of the Azure LB it wasn't going to work well for our on Premise servers. The Barracuda was unreliable and difficult to …
Of the solutions that we reviewed and evaluated, Kemp LoadMaster was the highest performing and easiest to maintain. We got it configured faster than the alternatives, it was easier to operate, and it required less work to support. Our practical tests also showed that it …
Well Suited: Perfect for hosting your own website. And, I don't mean just an individual with a port of MySpace. I mean an industrial strength, commercial grade replacement for Microsoft IIS. If you need a web server that provides a feature-rich environment with support for multiple sites (hosted in the same server), with such features as virtual hosting, and modular feature design, than Apache Web Server is right on the money. Less Well-Suited: Single page, small feature-set websites. Apache is a lot of trouble for developers to set up, just to send/receive JSON strings of a few bytes. You're really better off using something smaller and faster/simpler (lighttpd for example).
Loadmaster is very powerful and flexible load balancer. Variety of options allows to create a complex network of rules and routes. During our website rollout Loadmaster allowed us to run multiple generations of the website simultaneously and seamlessly by doing the content switching on the fly. Powerful API allows easy integration into any development lifecycle.
Apache is Open Source, governed well (the foundation) and probably the most stable computing platform ever.
Apache is probably one of the most customizable and configurable pieces of software that I have ever run across in more than 30 years of development.
If there is something that Apache can not do, then you need to ask yourself; should I be doing that? The point here is that it is a solid solution and seems to only integrate other technologies that are of the highest caliber.
Apache will live forever and you can not go wrong with it.
Complexity. You really need. highly skilled IT team to manage this device. This is not a solution or appliance for SME's - medium or large enterprises only!
Bugs, during 2015-2016 we suffered from a. number of bugs that caused downtime that would not have occurred without the Kemp LM. This is especially annoying given that it was purchased to reduce downtime! During 2017 stability improved.
Costs. This is a high cost solution with high ongoing support fees. Not for those who are very cost conscious
Kemp makes it very easy to setup, configure and manage the LoadMaster without needing a lot of help from their engineers. The interface is very easy to understand and intuitive to use. We like how it is not complicated - I can easily have one of my techs login and they can figure out how to setup/configure virtual services for load balancing without needing a manual or tech support.
I give this rating because there is so much Apache documentation and information on the web that you can literally do anything. This has to do with the fact that there is a huge Open Source community that is beyond mature and perhaps one of the most helpful to be found. The only thing that should hold anyone back from anything is that they can not read. RTFM, my friend. And I must say that the manual is excellent.
Support has been easy to deal with; I have only need[ed] to contact them a few times during setup. Once its been in place and operational, we have not need[ed] to mess with the system [which] is a huge advantage. I like system[s] that do not break and require constant attention in a production environment.
The comparison with other products from IBM or Oracle is difficult. These are mostly software that has to be paid for. The only fair comparison at eye level is probably the NGINX web server: It is also free and offers even higher performance. In the meantime, there is also a paid Plus version of NGINX. This has extended support and special functions.
The Kemp LoadMaster outshined both of our other evaluated products, mainly in speed of setup, features available, and overall cost of ownership. In the case of the Azure LB it wasn't going to work well for our on Premise servers. The Barracuda was unreliable and difficult to bring online with our needed applications. With the ability to import pre-configured templates into the Kemp load balancer, we were able to have it running within the first day of ownership.
Apache web server helped us in building client applications without much investment in the underlying server configuration which gives us the ability to start on a new project quickly and upgrade its resources as and when needed.
Using software which is well-supported by a community of open source contributors makes tasks easy and affordable when need help since a couple of minutes on Google saves a couple of dollars every time and you don't need a specialized support person unless there is something significant needing to be changed.
We used Kemp LoadMaster for many projects. For a lot of customers, load balancers were too expensive or too complicated before we introduced Kemp products.
It's not a overly complicated product, so we were able to train many engineers on it and have them get a certification.