NGINX Plus Reviews

We are just copying some of what is on the F5 to the NGINX and seeing how it behaves. We will start with the streaming servers.

The load balancing module, which is equivalent to LTM, is the focus of the PSE. So far, the features of both are identical. I believe NGINX has more features for securing these services, but in terms of load balancing, both are massive solutions.

We are still learning. I can't tell you.

It is still in the POC phase. It is not yet live. Running it as a proof of concept is never the same as having it in production.

It's currently a POC, and things are going well so far. We haven't gotten too far into advanced topics. We are still in the early stages of setting up VMs, routing, and more but things are going well so far.

Because we are in the POC, I would need more time to comment on stability. We haven't even finished or published the proof of concept. We are still in the preliminary stages.

In terms of scalability, we have not yet scaled up. We have a basic setup where we have a VM that acts as a load balancer, and the controller. 

Scaling up means adding more VMs to the cluster; it's as simple as that, but it's a feature that F5 lacks.

We have not yet contacted technical support.

We are still using F5.

The architecture is slightly different from F5 because it is based on VMs. F5 has an appliance, but it's a legacy style, whereas NGINX has both the VM and the appliance. The controller, which controls and pushes configuration, and the orchestrator are both parts of the VM. It is not difficult; it is simply different.

It took me about two or two and a half months to install this solution while I was experimenting with it, but that doesn't mean it's difficult or difficult to accomplish. It's new to me, and I'm following the instructions to get started with the solution.

It only took a few hours for the third party to implement everything from A to Z.

The POC is handled by a third party because we would need the license as well as the VMs or images. This must be supplied by a third party.

This would follow the technical evaluation. After that, we'll meet with the commercial team to go over these details. But, as of now, I have no idea how much that product or solution costs.

Because the solution is modular, it is not like F5, where you pay for the box, then licenses, and that's it. You pay for each feature that you want. It has both benefits and drawbacks. The benefits, in my opinion, are that you can pay for whatever you want. The drawback is that you must obtain a license for everything.

It is difficult to offer advice. I want to be completely objective about both products.

I would require more time. I haven't even discovered 20% of the features. NGINX Plus is more than just the load balancing module. It has a number of other modules and features.

I would rate NGINX Plus a seven out of ten.

NGINX can be used for publishing services or as a replacement solution for web services, like Apache, and it can get updates from servers.

We had a lot of attacks in the network, and most of them were based on Apache. About three years ago, we decided to go for a new solution.

There are about 2,500 users in my company. Our company is an international company, and we're growing. We're going to hire 500 people in the next six months.

It can be deployed on a private or public cloud.

The most valuable features are the gateway and the ability to publish to sites.

The scalability could be improved.

I have used this solution for two years.

It's a stable solution. It's good for load balancing and clustering.

We haven't used technical support. It's an open source solution, so we search the internet if we have any issues. We also do tests before implementing on a real server.

We previously used Apache. We switched for security reasons and because Apache couldn't be upgraded. It had a lot of security vulnerabilities.

Setup is very easy. It's easier to set up than Apache. There's a lot of documentation on the internet.

If someone is knowledgeable, they can implement the solution in 30 minutes. It depends on the infrastructure and the services in the company.

It's not a complicated solution. One or two people can implement it.

It's an open source solution, so it's free.

I would rate NGINX as ten out of ten.

I would recommend this solution to those who want to start using it because it's a good solution and it's free.

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. 

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.

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.

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.