Nginx_Apache benefit with htaccess rewrites on most requests

[Pieter]

Situation:
Large website with lots of small images (1.000.000+). Webserver: nginx_apache

Almost every static file relies on a htaccess rewrite pointing to a specific folder on my server.

As far as I understand this means that when a request is received by Nginx it first needs to pass through Apache because of the htaccess url rewrite.

Question: is there still any benefit in using nginx_apache or should I be using only Apache?

 

[Zhenyapan]

You can use both but replace htaccess rules with nginx rules maybe?

 

[Pieter]

You can use both but replace htaccess rules with nginx rules maybe?

That would be ideal, no apache would be needed then.

In the current situation (without replacing htaccess rules) would there be any benefit in using Nginx_Apache vs Apache?

 

[Driesp]

If you want to have HTTP/3 support, you can use nginx as a proxy.
Apache does not support HTTP/3 yet.
I am eagerly looking forward for HTTP/3 support.

We rarely use nginx, almost everything runs on apache.

Kind regards
Dries

 

[zEitEr]

Hello,

Question: is there still any benefit in using nginx_apache or should I be using only Apache?

+ fighting against basic HTTP flood and DOS
+ images can always be cached in NGINX (in case you change them rarely and don't change rewrite rules for existing images)