NGINX Plus Reviews

NGINX Plus is mainly used as an ingress controller and for API deployment and web servers.

NGINX Plus' most valuable feature is the ingress controller.

I've been working with NGINX Plus for around three years.

NGINX Plus will be stable if the customer does the proper sizing during the design phase. However, if this is not done, there will be challenges and issues.

There are no issues with NGINX Plus' scalability.

NGINX Plus' technical support is good.

NGINX Plus is simple to deploy even during advanced implementation.

NGINX Plus is moderately priced, but it could give better value for money.

I think NGINX Plus is one of the most powerful and fittest solutions in this area, and I'd recommend it to others. I would rate NGINX Plus as eight out of ten.

We use NGINX as solution for load balancing our cluster production.

Currently, we don't have any plans to increase the usage because each license costs around $2000 - $2500. 

We use open source nginx.

Their license fee has gone up, so that is one concern that we have. We are looking for alternative solutions which compare well and fit into our budget.

We are interested in an open-source version with the same set of features. We had to do a lot of custom coding around open source NGINX, which we were able to do.

Compared to other similar solutions on the market, I think it's over-priced. If they reduced the price by 50%, then I would definitely like to continue with them.

The scaling should be built into the software rather than configured from an outside source.

Regarding cluster-management, I should be able to provide configuration directly rather than bringing down the software and then updating it and taking it back down again.

Without going offline, if we can manage load balancing as a cluster — meaning I have to bring them down, update them, and then take it back. If that could be more dynamic, that would answer all of my requirements.

I have been using this solution for almost ten years.

NGINX is stable, but scalability-wise, there would be some downtime while managing a cluster of nginx.

There have been multiple occasions where they have taken their sweet time. We had the cheapest license that we could buy from them; because of that, they have a turnaround time of seven days to respond.

Previously, we used Apache and another solution, but I can't remember the name. It took roughly 30 minutes to scale up and down; that's one of the reasons why we switched to NGINX.

The initial setup can be complex. You really have to have a good understanding of their configurations. On a scale from one to five, I consider it a three.

I think installation only took a couple of minutes — no more than 10 minutes.

We implemented it ourselves. 

It takes roughly 10 minutes if I have to change the cluster or upgrade the cluster, but in the same cluster, there's no downtime as such. If I want to add additional systems, it is quite easy.

Only when we want to downsize the load balancers, then we have a little bit of downtime — two to three minutes, max. We do it in the middle of the night.

I would recommend this solution. I think it works for a smaller cluster — it really depends on what your team is trying to achieve.

I think it's a really good product for startup projects of medium size clusters, but once your customer base starts hitting big numbers then managing clusters becomes challenging. If you go beyond the limit, then you'll start to see a negative impact.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of Nine.

We use NGINX 1.12.x free version as reverse proxy to Java application servers (WildFly and Tomcat) on single instances, and use it as a load-balancer for our two Keycloak single sign-on instances too. We use AWS EC2 instances here.

We were just Apache 2.0 before NGINX. However, we have not compared the results of both.

Load-balancer feature, because I tried to do same with Apache 2.0 and HAProxy without sucess.

Instance service health check on the NGINX load balancer feature could be improved.

I am using the NGINX web server as my web server, especially to run PHP applications and Python. The main reason that I am using NGINX in these environments is micro caching. NGINX is a lightweight web server. 

Writing rules and configurations in NGINX can be more handy than Apache. Another usage is as a load balancer. NGINX works much better than HAProxy in our current hardware and architecture for HTTP/HTTPS load balancing. 

Because of our usage:

• Micro cache
• Rate limit
• Upstream (load balancing).

If NGINX brings some features for health check in the open source version, it would be better. 

First, I used NGINX as a reverse proxy web server for Apache.

I love NGINX, which is why I am rating it as a 10 out of 10.

NGINX has been primarily used as a web server, which is also used as a load balancer. The robust software architecture allows for it to be scalable and very stable.

Zero Downtime has always been a strength in recommending infrastructure web services. NGINX allows me to execute such infrastructure with less complications and the ability to switch from server to server easily.

NGINX's multi-thread compatibility has been the integral part of it being a robust enterprise solution. 

Make modules easier to enable or disable. The beauty and ugly side of the NGINX modules is you have to know how to compile the module. For beginners or non-very technical aspirant(s) going for NGINX, they have to learn how to compile the modules.

It is very stable.

The flexibility of its modules allow it to be scalable. You just have to know how to integrate them with various enterprise scenarios.

I have been using NGINX for five years. I have implemented various NGINX solutions to different client requirements.

I have no problems with it. Its stability is what makes it very much recommended as a solution for any enterprise to utilize.

We are using NGINX to provide a reverse proxy in an environment of web services.

The product is free, reliable, and safe. 

When I worked in a security research center, we tested NGINX to support DoS and DDoS attacks, and its results were great.

It is reliable.

I would like it to have a more user-friendly graphical interface.

No issues yet.

No issues yet.

We used Microsoft ForeFront and changed because it was not stable during DDoS attacks.

It was a simple setup.

NGINX is a free tool in Brazil. There are some companies which do support it. The price is the cost to contract support with a specialized company, usually during consulting hours.

No.

I have been using it for eight years.

Simplicity, stability, and modularity. Because, if you are familiar with Apache, you will know why my first reason is simplicity. Nginx is simple to configure, very stable in a highly utilized environment and very modular, allowing DevOps to create it's own modules for interactive use with Nginx.

It lowered overall bugs and increased system stability. Also, it allowed our system to serve many more clients than the old system did.

Only improvement needed that I would point to is scalability. With it, I mean clusterized organisation on a low level. At the moment, the best alternative is RHEL HA.

Around four to five years.

No.

Yes. As I explained in areas for improvement.

I have no experience with the Nginx technical team.

Yes, Apache. It was terribly complex for usage and unstable in a production environment.

Complex. It needed a complete product rework.

I have no advice. Nginx is free. I don't have experience with the Plus version.

No.

Use community knowledge. Nginx is widely used worldwide and there are many experts on the web that will help you out. Also, read the documentation. Its documentation is excellent.