我们是否应该使用Nexus或Artifactory来进行Maven回购?

We are using Maven for a large build process (> 100 modules). We have been storing our external dependencies in source control, and using that to update a local repo.

我们正在使用Maven进行大型构建过程(> 100模块)。我们已经将我们的外部依赖项存储在源代码控制中，并使用它来更新本地的repo。

However, we are ready to graduate to a local repo that can cache central so that we don't have to proactively download all 3rd parties (but we can still have a local repo to pull from). In addition we want to publish our internal build artifacts from a nightly build so that developers don't have to build the world.

但是，我们已经准备好了，可以进入一个本地的repo，它可以缓存中环，这样我们就不必主动下载所有的第三方(但是我们仍然可以有一个本地的repo来退出)。此外，我们还希望从每晚的构建中发布我们的内部构建构件，这样开发人员就不必构建这个世界了。

We are considering Nexus and Artifactory. What are the reasons for preferring one over the other? Are there others we should be considering?

我们正在考虑Nexus和Artifactory。为什么选择一个而不是另一个?还有其他我们应该考虑的吗?

12 个解决方案

#1

I don't know about Artifactory but here are my reasons for using Nexus:

我不知道Artifactory的情况，但以下是我使用Nexus的理由:

• Dead simple install (and since 1.2, dead simple upgrade, too)
• 死简单安装(从1.2，死简单升级)
• Very good web UI
• 很好的web UI
• Easy to maintain, almost no administrative overhead
• 易于维护，几乎没有管理开销。
• Provides you with RSS feeds of recently installed, broken artifacts and errors
• 为您提供最近安装的RSS提要、损坏的工件和错误。
• It can group several repositories so you can mirror several sources but need only one or two entries in your settings.xml
• 它可以对多个存储库进行分组，这样您就可以镜像多个源，但只需要在settings.xml中有一个或两个条目。
• Deploying from Maven works out of the box (no need for WebDAV hacks, etc).
• 从Maven中进行部署(不需要WebDAV hacks等)。
• it's free
• 它是免费的
• You can redirect access paths (i.e. some broken pom.xml requires "a.b.c" from "xxx"). Instead of patching the POM, you can fix the bug in Nexus and redirect the request to the place where the artifact really is.
• 您可以重定向访问路径(也就是一些破碎的pom)。xml需要“a.b。从“xxx”c”)。与修补POM不同，您可以修复关系中的bug，并将请求重定向到工件真正所在的位置。

#2

I'm sure that if you only talk about storing binaries from "mvn deploy" both will do fine.

我确信，如果您只讨论从“mvn部署”中存储二进制文件，那么这两种方法都可以。

We use Artifactory very extensively with all upgrades along the way. Lots of projects, numerous snapshots deployed and external repos proxied. Not a single problem. I find it hard to explain how other people experience issues with its DB, indexing or anything else. Nothing like that ever happened to us. Also, Artifactory allows to store data on a disk and only use a DB for storing metadata, it is quite flexible (see more here).

我们在所有的升级过程中都非常广泛地使用了Artifactory。大量的项目，大量的快照和外部的repos代理。不是一个单一的问题。我发现很难解释其他人是如何使用它的数据库、索引或其他东西来体验问题的。从来没有发生过这样的事。另外，Artifactory允许在磁盘上存储数据，并且只使用DB来存储元数据，它非常灵活(在这里可以看到更多)。

What makes those applications very different is their approach towards integration with other build tools and technologies. Nexus and Sonatype are pretty much locked on Maven and m2eclipse. They ignore anything else and only recently started to work on their own proprietary Hudson integration (see their Maven 3 webinar). EDIT: This is not true anymore as of 2017 Nexus gives a much larger support for other build tools End of Edit

使这些应用程序非常不同的是它们与其他构建工具和技术集成的方法。在Maven和m2eclipse中，Nexus和Sonatype几乎是锁定的。他们忽略了其他任何东西，直到最近才开始使用他们自己专有的Hudson集成(参见他们的Maven 3 webinar)。编辑:这不是真的，因为2017年的Nexus给其他构建工具的编辑提供了更大的支持。

Artifactory provides an awesome Hudson, TeamCity and Bamboo integration, and Gradle / Ivy support. So while Nexus gives you nothing once you step out of Sonatype "comfort zone" (Maven, m2eclipse), Artifactory embraces and collaborates with all major build tools.

Artifactory提供了一个很棒的Hudson, TeamCity和Bamboo integration，以及Gradle / Ivy支持。因此，当你走出Sonatype“舒适区”(Maven, m2eclipse)时，Nexus不会给你任何东西，而Artifactory则会拥抱并与所有主要的构建工具合作。

In fact, being able to deploy build artifacts from Hudson, when job has finished, and not by "mvn deploy" is a huge difference: Artifactory Hudson plugin makes an atomic-like deploy of all artifacts at once, only when a build job finished successfully. "mvn deploy" runs after each module and can deploy a partial set of artifacts if a build job fails in the middle. Deploying from Maven on module completion and not from a build server on job completion is really a bad thing to do.

事实上，当工作完成时，能够从Hudson部署构建工件，而不是通过“mvn部署”，这是一个巨大的差异:Artifactory Hudson插件在一次构建工作成功完成后，就会立即生成所有工件的原子式部署。“mvn部署”在每个模块之后运行，如果构建作业在中间失败，则可以部署部分工件。在模块完成时从Maven部署，而不是从构建服务器上完成任务完成，这是一件很糟糕的事情。

As you see, Artifactory thinks "outside the box" while Nexus thinks "inside the box" and only cares about Maven and Maven artifacts.

正如您所看到的，Artifactory认为“在盒子之外”，而Nexus认为“在盒子里面”，并且只关心Maven和Maven工件。

Something else that makes Artifactory more accessible is their cloud-based Artifactory Online solution. For about $80 a month you have your own Artifactory instance, no need to dedicate any server for it.

另一些让Artifactory更容易接近的东西是他们基于云的Artifactory在线解决方案。每个月大约有80美元，你有自己的Artifactory实例，不需要为它提供任何服务器。

Artifactory has a simple and straightforward REST API, don't know how it works for Nexus. Edit Nexus has also a REST API that you can use easily as well.

Artifactory有一个简单而直接的REST API，不知道它是如何为Nexus工作的。编辑Nexus还有一个你可以轻松使用的REST API。

To summarize, for basic storage of Maven artifacts I think both are fine. But while Nexus stops there being strictly a "Maven repository manager", Artifactory goes on and on, being a general "Binaries storage" for binaries of any kind, from any build tool and CI server.

总之，对于Maven工件的基本存储，我认为两者都很好。但是，虽然Nexus在严格意义上是一个“Maven存储库管理器”，但Artifactory仍在继续，它是任何类型的二进制文件的通用“二进制存储”，从任何构建工具和CI服务器。

#3

Artifactory supports both file-system and database storage backends. Storage is checksum based and identical binaries are stored only once, no matter how many times they appear in the repo, which makes Artifactory more efficient storage-wise. Move and copy are also very cheap because of this architecture (in Nexus there's no REST for move/copy - you have to move stuff on the file system, then run corrective actions on the repo to let it know content has changed).

Artifactory支持文件系统和数据库存储后端。存储是基于校验和的，相同的二进制文件只存储一次，无论它们在repo中出现多少次，这使得Artifactory更高效地存储。移动和复制也是非常便宜的，因为这个架构(在Nexus中，没有其他的移动/拷贝)，你必须在文件系统上移动东西，然后在repo上运行纠正操作，让它知道内容已经改变了。

Another important differentiator is Artifactory has unique integration with Hudson and TeamCity for capturing information about deployed artifacts, resolved dependencies and environment data associated with build runs, which provides full build traceability.

另一个重要的不同点是Artifactory与Hudson和TeamCity进行了独特的集成，以获取关于部署工件的信息，解决了与构建运行相关的依赖和环境数据，从而提供了完整的构建可追溯性。

#4

Artifactory stores the artifacts in a database, which means that if something goes wrong, all your artifacts are gone. Nexus uses a flat file for your precious artifacts so you don't have to worry about them all getting lost.

Artifactory将构件存储在数据库中，这意味着如果出现问题，您所有的工件都会消失。Nexus使用一个平面文件来存放你的珍贵物品，这样你就不用担心它们会丢失。

#5

If you need the "Pro" features of either (e.g. Staging repos, artifact promotion, NuGet), , then you need to consider the different pricing models, which are displayed on their websites.

如果您需要“Pro”特性(例如，分段repos、工件升级、NuGet)，那么您需要考虑不同的定价模型，这些模型显示在它们的网站上。

• http://www.jfrog.com/home/v_pricing
• http://www.jfrog.com/home/v_pricing
• http://www.sonatype.com/nexus/purchase
• http://www.sonatype.com/nexus/purchase

In summary:

总而言之:

• Artifactory Pro
  • you pay per server
  • 你支付每台服务器
  • you can pay more for increased service hours
  • 你可以花更多的钱来增加服务时间。
• 你可以为每台服务器支付更高的服务时间。
• Nexus Pro
  • you pay per seat, i.e. how many developers downloading artifacts
  • 每个座位都要付费，即有多少开发者在下载工件。
  • support service is Mon-Fri 0800-2000 ET only, no matter what you pay
  • 支持服务只在周一-周五0800-2000，无论你付多少。
• Nexus Pro的每个座位都是付费的，也就是说，无论你付多少钱，下载工件支持服务的开发人员都是mono - fri 0800-2000。

No matter how many users you have, Nexus Pro offers a support service that's broadly equivalent to Artifactory's $7,450/year "Silver Value Pack".

不管你有多少用户，Nexus Pro提供的支持服务大致相当于Artifactory的7,450美元/年“银价包”。

$7,450/year will buy you approximately 67 Nexus Pro seats (1-50 @ $108, the rest @ $120).

$7,450/年将为您购买大约67个Nexus Pro座位(1-50 @ $108，其余@ $120)。

On price and support alone then, Nexus Pro makes sense until you get to 67 users, at which point Artifactory becomes the cheaper option.

在价格和支持上，Nexus Pro是有意义的，直到你有67个用户，在这一点上，Artifactory成为了更便宜的选择。

If you're doing all the support in-house; however, that magic point is about 23 users (Artifactory's most basic support offering is $2,750/year).

如果你在内部做所有的支持;然而，这个神奇的点大约有23个用户(Artifactory最基本的支持产品是2750美元/年)。

#6

I made some research recenly about Artifactory 2 and Nexus 1.3. I'll list here the main differences I found:

我对Artifactory 2和Nexus 1.3做了一些研究。我将在这里列出我发现的主要差异:

• Artifactory stores metadata and optionally files in DB, Nexus writes directly to file system. There are pros. and cons. for each approach. DB supports transactions, while in FS stored files can be accessed directly.
• Artifactory将元数据和可选文件存储在DB中，而Nexus则直接写入文件系统。有优点。和cons，对于每种方法。DB支持事务，而在FS存储文件中可以直接访问。
• Artifactory has higher system requirements especially for disk space.
• Artifactory具有更高的系统需求，特别是磁盘空间。
• Artifactory has LDAP support, while Nexus has it only in paid version. On the other hand free LDAP plugin for Nexus is available on Google code.
• Artifactory有LDAP支持，而Nexus只有付费版本。另一方面，在谷歌代码中可以使用免费的LDAP插件。

The most complete comparison: http://binary-repositories-comparison.github.io/

最完整的比较是:http://binaryrepositories-comparison .github.io/。

#7

You should use Artifactory Its latest version was a real jump You can backup incrementally your repositories , which means you can have all your artifacts saved and maintain Its has a easy to use web ui and is really easy to set up i enjoyed it a lot check out its new version 2.0

您应该使用Artifactory它的最新版本是一个真正的跳时,你才能不断地备份你的存储库,这就意味着你可以拥有你所有的工件保存和保持有一个易于使用的web ui和很容易设置我喜欢它很多检查新版本2.0

#8

From a learners point of view I note some specific differences between the two.

从学习者的角度来看，我注意到两者之间有一些具体的区别。

1. Sonatype .war deployment is not supported on Jboss application server at the time, although it does run under Tomcat.
2. Jboss应用服务器上不支持war部署，尽管它在Tomcat下运行。
3. Sonatype does not offer me an Amazon Machine Image (AMI), at present, that I could quickly stand up and test.
4. Sonatype不提供给我一个Amazon Machine Image (AMI)，目前我可以快速站起来测试。
5. An Artifactory AMI is provided by Bitnami and takes a only a few minutes to stand up and a few more minutes to configure, maybe several tens of minutes dependant upon what you're trying to achieve.
6. 一个Artifactory AMI由Bitnami提供，只需几分钟就可以站起来，再花几分钟来配置，可能需要几十分钟的时间来依赖于你想要达到的目标。
7. Artifactory offer a SaaS version of Artifactory in the cloud so you can focus on getting things done rather than infrastructure.
8. Artifactory在云中提供了一个SaaS版本的Artifactory，这样您就可以专注于完成任务而不是基础设施。
9. I've no experience with Nexus but I've found Artifactory very intuitive and easy to configure, at least initially.
10. 我对Nexus没有经验，但我发现Artifactory很直观，很容易配置，至少一开始是这样。
11. Added - I do note that the Artifactory User Guide, which may be OK for a seasoned pro, is a bit light on for some in depth explanations. For instance, starting out, one unzips and then addes a Repository, say RedHat's Jboss EAP Enterprise Repo. All goes fine but then when I tried to view the artifacts that were imported Artifactory reports zero artifacts? No errors or warnings so I'm now looking for an explanation. Is this normal or not normal? A simple explanation in the doco can quickly point one in the right direction. Being a good contributor I'm adding these comments to the project for the benefit of other starters.
12. 另外，我注意到，对于一个经验丰富的专业人士来说，Artifactory的用户指南可能是可以理解的。例如，RedHat的Jboss EAP Enterprise Repo就开始了，一个unzips，然后addes一个存储库。一切都很好，但是当我试图查看那些被导入的工件时，工件是零工件吗?没有错误或警告，所以我现在正在寻找解释。这是正常的还是正常的?在doco中，一个简单的解释可以很快指向正确的方向。作为一个好的贡献者，我将这些评论添加到项目中，以帮助其他初学者。

#9

All politics/religion aside, licensing makes a difference for some organizations.

抛开所有的政治/宗教信仰，许可对某些组织来说是不同的。

Nexus is GPL now AGPLv3 and now Eclipse Public License (EPL).

现在，Nexus是GPL的GPL，现在是Eclipse公共许可证(EPL)。

Artifactory is Apache licensed LGPLv3 licensed as of version 2.1 of the product.

Artifactory是Apache许可的LGPLv3，许可为该产品的2.1版本。

You may also want to consider Archiva, just for comparison's sake. It's Apache 2.0 licensed.

你也可以考虑一下Archiva，只是为了比较。Apache 2.0许可。

#10

I see that Nexus usage is growing, while Artifcatory usage is generaly staying flat.

我发现Nexus的使用正在增长，而人工智能的使用却是平淡无奇的。

Picture is taken from here http://blog.sonatype.com/2014/11/42000-nexus-repository-managers-and-growing/

图片来自http://blog.sonatype.com/2014/11/42000- nexusrepository -manager -and growing/。

There is also matrix-comparison http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVENUSER/Maven+Repository+Manager+Feature+Matrix

还有矩阵比较(http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVENUSER/Maven+Repository+Manager+特性+矩阵)。

#11

Both Artifactory and Nexus have more or less similar feature set but Artifactory's LDAP support makes it more attractive over Nexus. Though Nexus also have LDAP support but in paid version :-(

Artifactory和Nexus都有或多或少类似的特性集，但Artifactory的LDAP支持使其在Nexus上更具吸引力。虽然Nexus也有LDAP支持，但有付费版本:-(

#12

Hmmm...my experience with artifactory is awful...but I'm a relative newbie so take it with a grain of salt. My overall complaint is that jar files recently uploaded to Artifactory do not seem to get indexed right away - as in for hours - and there does not seem to be a good way to force it. I've tried various things that appeared as if they should have worked, but didn't. I have been working with m2eclipse, adding dependencies to a project that i'm converting from ant. When I try to add a jar that I have just added to artifactory, I expect it to show up as a choice in the selector but it does not.

嗯…我在artifactory的经历很糟糕……但我是一个相对的新手，所以要带点盐。我的总体抱怨是，最近上载到Artifactory的jar文件似乎并没有立即被索引——就像在数小时内一样——而且似乎没有一个好的方法来强制它。我试过各种各样的方法，好像它们应该有用，但没有。我一直在使用m2eclipse，将依赖项添加到我正在从ant转换的项目中。当我尝试添加刚刚添加到artifactory的jar时，我希望它在选择器中显示为一个选项，但它没有。

a coworker told me that they had installed nexus and so far they like it...but I can't vouch for it yet. I'm about to install that on a Linux box as soon as IT can find me one.

一位同事告诉我，他们已经安装了nexus，目前为止他们都很喜欢。但我还不能保证。我马上要在一个Linux盒子上安装它，只要它能找到我。