NGINX Plus Reviews

In my architecture (which is a microservice architecture with some special advances), NGINX serves multiple purposes. Namely:

• Application Gateway with an application-level firewall tool and load distributor & balancer (also serves for A/B testing).
• Rate limiter and bandwidth limiter (session-based).
• Source of real-time logs, consumed by intrusion detection system.
• "Circuit breaker" for the whole complex of microservices.

No other tool can compare to it.

I have never seen a single case where programmatic tools can change an organization. Tools are not subjects. They are passive objects. Organizations and people are subjects. Tools are just reflections of the organisation and people. Tools mirror people's faces and habits, never vice versa.

NGINX is extremely efficient in terms of the connection rate to the CPU cycles ratio, and in terms of the bandwidth to CPU cycles. It is configurable enough so smart engineers (which team consists of) can configure virtually anything which a product manager (say "business") is able to imagine. Even more because business does not always know all the quirks of DevOps and operations.

I am not so happy with their pricing policy, but this is not the worse thing in my life. I can tolerate it.

Stable as a rock. On the stable host OS and stable hardware, your connectivity channels will be saturated (and dead) long before NGINX will mention any difficulties.

No scalability issues at all. Just add more horsepower to the VM. Horizontal scalability also works well, but you definitely need an engineer who knows how to do this and is ready to take his/her part of the responsibility. 

I've never asked for anything. Everything was done in-house.

Before NGINX, there was Squid. I have been using NGINX since its arrival on the market.

Squid is a tool of a different age, from a different (previous) generation. I started using Squid many years ago, from its pre-release beta. It was a good tool for its time and purpose: just caching proxy, which allows you to somehow save on traffic and bandwidth. At these times, the web was mostly static so it worked.

Later, both the capacities of the channels had grown 1,000-10,000 times from megabits to a 10th of gigabits per second. The web moved to mostly dynamic content, so caching proxies lost their appeal.

On the other hand, NGINX is mostly an application level gateway, not a proxy per se. It is a different tool for different tasks.

Get a real good engineer who will do this for your business. I did, and I am happy with it.

Only an in-house team was in the game for implementation. I doubt that the vendor has enough engineers of this level available for assigning them to the kind of customers that we are.

Who calculates "ROI" for every single component of a large system with more than 100 components in it? 

The whole system brought ROI even better than what was expected.

There were not any other real options. 

Squid is too heavy. Apache in reverse proxy mode is also over-bloated, resource hungry, and not suitable for the task.

NGINX is the best available tool today for the tasks it covers.

The primary use cases involve using NGINX for various features including WAF, API security, DDoS protection, and bot protection. Additionally, it facilitates network discovery and provides visibility into network activities, allowing us to uncover solutions and identify any areas we might have missed.

I utilize NGINX for its capability to provide visibility and discovery options. It helps discover and identify networks, which is crucial for ensuring application performance, managing latency, and checking server reachability. NGINX communicates with XE and uses Linux command terminology, thus providing visibility by interacting with the nearest POP.

The need for human involvement is high due to the complexity of NGINX's Linux-based terminology. More tactics and techniques can enhance its usability. Additionally, it is not a cost-effective solution for few applications.

We have been using this technology for the last five to ten years, so we are familiar with how it works.

I have not encountered any challenges with NGINX's stability, as it works effectively with Big IP, XC, and Palo Alto.

Support is available in the market with options like FYSE, which provides assistance during critical tasks.

We have experience using Palo Alto Networks, Sophos, SonicWall Firewalls, and other technologies.

NGINX is not cost-effective, especially for few applications, and is considered higher-priced.

Alternatives evaluated include Redway, cloud solutions, and services providing CDN options. Some gaps exist in NGINX not covering certain API options.

I would rate the solution an eight and a half out of ten. It's important to understand the requirements before recommending its implementation.

We use this solution for caching. We are customers of NGINX.

This is a great product, it has everything. 

The center management system was not very good, maybe their new NGINX manager product is better. I'd like to see a good web management interface in the next release. 

I've been using this solution for three years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable, we have around 1,000 users. 

The technical support is very good. 

The initial setup is straightforward.

They offer a free product, but there's a license for the more advanced features like API gateway. It's a mid-range cost. 

It's worth learning Kubernetes because NGINX is generally deployed in the Kubernetes environment like ingress controller. 

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

By far the best solution for web traffic control - in production and just around the house.

We have used it in every project since 2013, setting it as our standard. Our organization is able to use it effectively in multiple applications. 

The most valuable features would be the following:

• Reverse proxy routing
• Authentication
• Caching
• The ability to manipulate requests and responses
• Load balancing, etc. 

I would say ModSecurity 3.0 for NGINX Core, but they just released that. 

The biggest room for improvement would be to allow NGINX Core machines to cluster for memory zones in some way with a Plug and Play module. 

No issues. Never.

No issues. Never.

I have never had to use it. However, the community is very strong and supportive. I often answer people's questions on Reddit, etc. 

When I was young, I used Apache2, because that is all I knew. I switched to NGINX once I learned of it. That's the story. 

The initial setup is straightforward for those who are used to reverse proxies and/or load balancer terminology. The NGINX default install sets up an example web server, modifying it from there is very straightforward, and their documentation is fairly good. 

NGINX Plus is worth it, if you need it. If you do not need the features or support, the free and open source package is more than capable. 

I have evaluated many types of products that fall into this category. They are all far less superior than NGINX: F5 BIG-IP, HAProxy, Apache2, and IIS. I am sure the list goes on. 

Install it, test it out, download, and read this free ebook: https://www.nginx.com/resources/library/complete-nginx-cookbook/.

I use this product on AWS. I would suggest the ELB/ALB sandwich model. There is a section in the ebook about this model.

Personally, I have written a book for O'Reilly Media that was sponsored by NGINX, Inc.

NGINX Plus is a part of F5 and can be useful for customers with containers and terminals. Moreover, it's useful for businesses that need application delivery control and enterprise load balancing.

It's lightweight software that can handle heavy loads efficiently.

There is room for improvement in the pricing model. 

I have been using this solution for three years. 

The customer service and support is fine. 

The initial setup is straightforward. It took about a week to deploy the solution.

There was an ROI. It's a very useful solution.

The licensing cost is yearly, and it can be quite expensive.

Overall, I would rate the solution a ten out of ten. 

If you're using a container environment, I would highly recommend it. It's usually a good fit in about 58% of cases.

I use it for eCommerce web servers and to reverse proxy in a different cases. I also use it for high availability, load balancing, and failover.

An example of how this product has improved my organizational functions is the form of how I work in failover cases and how this improves my capability to repair or reestablish communication.

Its most valuable features are load balancing and application delivery. This is the most efficient application for these features because of stability and its efficiency.

They should do in the open source version of what they did to Advanced HTTP, TCP, and UDP load balancing. They are always creating improvements and working towards new features.

No stability issues.

No scalability issues.

Their technical support is great.

We previously used Apache2. We switched to NGINX because I read about the better throughput that NGINX offers.

NGINX initial configuration is straightforward.

I do not know about this.

I do not know about this.

I do not know about this.

No.

It is a great product. It serves us well and is the best solution. I have been using it since 2012.

We build all our websites (of which we have multiple, from production sites to development environments), through webpack, so we use NGINX to quickly host them, while easily binding to the relevant (sub)domains. Our entire service stack runs on Linux. Our most challenging part was to run an older PHP website reverse-proxied through NGINX. That was not fun.

NGINX isn’t itself a productivity tool, but rather a cog in the engine of a solid service stack. In a way, it's the same as adding RAM to a PC. While you don’t necessarily feel the new improvement, you’ll definitely know when it’s gone.

Our primary use for NGINX is as a Web server, so that’s where we derive the most value. Recently, we’ve needed to deploy sites over a number of servers to balance the load, which was not only painless but also super valuable.

We used the standard tried-and-tested features of NGINX. Everything is done through the CLI over a secure connection and there have not been any issues or additions to our wish list.

NGINX has an amazing developer base which ensures amazing stability.

We’re only just getting into the scalability side of things, so no issues yet.

Never needed technical support (which speaks for itself).

We tried to use some "golden bullet" solutions but we never needed most of their features (like a built-in database environment). NGINX is a direct way to satisfy a specific need.

This was installed on an Ubuntu system. The setup and deployment is well documented which lead to creating an easy hosting environment.

The idea of using other lightweight solutions, or a native Ubuntu Web server, was completely overshadowed by NGINX.

Support the developers and the product, they’ve worked really hard to give you something you’ll always be satisfied with. First, set up a free environment and see your limitations, and then pay for what you need.

Always do a setup and test on a small (possibly in-house) server. Work out all your kinks and processes, then deploy it to a production environment. Having something like docker helps immensely.

I rate NGINX a 10 out of 10. Really, the only other options are native solutions that are either super convoluted or don’t have the needed features.

I use the solution as a reverse proxy. 

The product is lightweight and fast. 

The solution needs to be easier to setup and deploy. 

I have been using the product for two to three years. 

I would rate the product stability a ten out of ten.

I would rate the product scalability an eight out of ten. 

The tool helps us to improve our website speed. 

I use the solution's community edition which is free of cost. 

I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. You need to be careful with the product's configurations. It is easy to maintain.