NGINX Plus Reviews

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.

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.