IIS vs. Apache

[Help Desk]

If IIS hosting was just as cheap as Apache hosting, would your opinion on IIS change at all?

[expat]

well it is as cheap as Apache (if you look round a bit)

The simple fact is there are zillions of people running Apache and nix and there are relatively less running IIS thus basic support is not at a premium in the Apache range.

Afraid before I consider IIS I rather use SUN's OS and Apache.

IIS does have the functionality but still a lot is bolted on as an afterthought and things like mod_rewrite are complicated on Apache but even more complex on IIS.

It is a nice tool to bring small companies via an Intranet to the real world which is when they should swap over.

So I still recommend Ap on nix rather than IIS

Cheers
Expat

[J.D.]

If IIS hosting was just as cheap as Apache hosting, would your opinion on IIS change at all?There's no one-size-fits-all answer on this. It entirely depends on what features you need and what comes with IIS and Apache (PHP, DBMS, ASP, ASP.NET, etc). Apache has more great out-of-the-box features, though, such as mod_rewrite.

J.D.

[redking]

Depends on how you feel about Microsoft. Are you going to be managing the server? Lots of factors affect this decision but Apache is still the most popular web server software used today.

[Help Desk]

I ask because I took a look at a video about Scott Guthrie and new IIS 7 and DotNet changes. With the new changes in the pipeline, such as replaceable IIS modules and default inclusion of blogging, forums and CMS tools, things start becoming easier and more integrated.

These default tools and a more "open" architecture are sure to win over some Apache users. The percentage may be low, but that is still a huge percentage of people. The new "Free" SQL-Server database (SQL Express) also raises its maximum database size to 4 gig.

My preference has changed to IIS/DotNet because of this and because of the formal DotNet(Visual Studio) tools AND because of such open source projects as DotNetNuke (http://www.dotnetnuke.com).

Are there any Apache stalwarts out there that want to argue the evils of MS?

[anthonycea]

Yeah, read this and then make your case before the forum Bling :eek:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/business/2005-03-18-eu-microsoft-threats_x.htm

Bling when are you going to come around to doing what is right, open source is right, not M$ source :cool:

[mushroom]

The new "Free" SQL-Server database (SQL Express) also raises its maximum database size to 4 gig.

Wow 4 gig. :p

There is no maximum database size for MySQL running on Linux. :cool:

[digitalpoint]

Being free, it still wouldn't change my opinion of IIS. I've never seen IIS run on a comparable machine that was half as fast and stable as Apache.

[nevetS]

IIS is slow, requires too much maintenance, is full of security problems, and is a huge target for hackers.

Sometimes I hate apache, but if you've ever run an IIS server believe me you could live without whatever latest and greatest features they have are.

To top it off, I'm no fan of dot.net.

[J.D.]

IIS is slow, requires too much maintenance, is full of security problems, and is a huge target for hackers.Being free, it still wouldn't change my opinion of IIS. I've never seen IIS run on a comparable machine that was half as fast and stable as Apache.
Where did you guys get this data from? If you actually try to load up IIS with a stress tool, it will perform really well. Granted, it doesn't have as many cool built-in features, like Apache does, but performance-wise IIS is anything but slow.

Here, ran a quick test with IIS5 and Apache 2.0.53 and IIS outperformed Apache by quite a bit. The test was retreiving a small plain HTML page (about 500 bytes) using 100 connections (10 threads, each opening 10 sockets). The test ran for 15 seconds and here are the results:

Apache

Number of hits: 17794
Requests per Second: 1266.27
Total Bytes Sent (in KB): 3441.34
Bytes Sent Rate (in KB/s): 244.90
Total Bytes Recv (in KB): 12441.90
Bytes Recv Rate (in KB/s): 885.40

IIS

Number of hits: 19758
Requests per Second: 1311.01
Total Bytes Sent (in KB): 3819.18
Bytes Sent Rate (in KB/s): 253.42
Total Bytes Recv (in KB): 14220.36
Bytes Recv Rate (in KB/s): 943.57
On top of that, Apache used on average 60% of each of the two CPUs, while IIS used only 40%.

This does not include any server-side scripting - just pure HTTP capabilities.

To top it off, I'm no fan of dot.net.Agree. I think it's a nightmare from the security point of view in the hosted environment.

J.D.

[digitalpoint]

Did you run that test with Apache for Windows by chance?

[J.D.]

Did you run that test with Apache for Windows by chance?Yes, to be fair - same CPUs, same disks, etc. I don't have two identical machines running Linux and Windows to run a test like this.

[digitalpoint]

Apache for Windows is not as good as the unix flavors. Not sure if it's because the Apache foundation focuses primarily on unix, or if it's the overheard of the Windows operating system itself (or maybe a little of both).

What I'm talking about is Apache for unix vs. IIS. Apache is faster and much more stable (reboot of the machines are measured in months or years... and only because of a hardware upgrade or kernel update). I can't say the same for the Windows machines. Although Windows 2003 is a (baby) step in the right direction. I think the biggest problem is just running Windows itself requires too many resources IMO.

[J.D.]

What I'm talking about is Apache for unix vs. IIS. Apache is faster and much more stable (reboot of the machines are measured in months or years... and only because of a hardware upgrade or kernel update).Security updates is the main reason for system restarts. I agree, it's pain. Stability-wise, though, I disagree - IIS is a very stable server. Of course, I'm talking about the HTTP core - as soon as you start loading up plug-ins, the stability will enirely depend on the stability of the third-party code. However, even in this case, IIS provides a way to run third-party code in a dedicated process, which is separate from IIS itself, so that if any third-party misbehaves, only the host process will be restarted and IIS will still function properly in the meantime.

Security-wise, IIS6 was redesigned to a large extent and is more secure than previous versions of IIS. For security conscious, it is possible to install URLScan plug-in that will further tighten the security (e.g. will prohibit certain HTTP methods, extensions, etc).

I also agree that in the hosting environment IIS is way behind Apache. The things you can do with .htaccess are truly amazing and server-wide. For example, it is not possible to secure a directory in IIS without using precious system user accounts (when you have a dozen, every account counts) and in Apache it's as simple as throwing a few directives into .htaccess.

J.D.

[neterslandreau]

Being free, it still wouldn't change my opinion of IIS. I've never seen IIS run on a comparable machine that was half as fast and stable as Apache.
*** Neters raises his coffee cup..
Here, here!

[Help Desk]

Wow 4 gig. :p

There is no maximum database size for MySQL running on Linux. :cool:

MySQL also doesn't have the functionality of SQL Server. If you want more size you can spread out to more DBs or switch over to MySQL. Seeing as how most DBs won't get close to 4gb, I would choose to have more functionality. The coolest thing about the MS-SQL databases in the future will be the ability to write stored procedures using DotNet (C#, VB,...).

[Help Desk]

Apache for Windows is not as good as the unix flavors. Not sure if it's because the Apache foundation focuses primarily on unix, or if it's the overheard of the Windows operating system itself (or maybe a little of both).

What I'm talking about is Apache for unix vs. IIS. Apache is faster and much more stable (reboot of the machines are measured in months or years... and only because of a hardware upgrade or kernel update). I can't say the same for the Windows machines. Although Windows 2003 is a (baby) step in the right direction. I think the biggest problem is just running Windows itself requires too many resources IMO.

IIS 7 is where the "Huge" step will be. Also I am choosing IIS/DotNet mainly because of the ease of using its tools, in finding examples/documentation and in integrating into other MS products. I like the idea of Open & Free just as much as anybody else, but I like the idea of being "Easy" even better.

[anthonycea]

I like easy too Bling, I am waiting for the "SOA Info server", you are not required to know anything, you just "Sit on your ass" and it configures itself and serves files.

I have been waiting for this for quite a while because I have absolutely zero knowledge of server administration.

[Help Desk]

I like easy too Bling, I am waiting for the "SOA Info server", you are not required to know anything, you just "Sit on your ass" and it configures itself and serves files.

I have been waiting for this for quite a while because I have absolutely zero knowledge of server administration.
If you have a static IP address, it is pretty easy in the Windows world. Make sure you installed the IIS from your Windows CD and place all your files in c:\inetpub\wwwroot.

If you want more then 10 conncurrent connections with XP or 2000 you need to tweak Windows or upgrade to a server edition.

[Help Desk]

If IIS hosting was just as cheap as Apache hosting, would your opinion on IIS change at all?
Can you believe that somebody gave me a bad rep mark for posting this question? Is somebody so afraid of Microsoft that they take it out on me? They didn't even have the courtesy to post why? That is the action of somebody pretty fickle. I know that a real Apache lover isn't afraid of somebody else's opinion.

[anthonycea]

Could not have been me Bling, I don't play that game and my votes don't count anyway :p

Don't sweat the small stuff man :o

[J.D.]

Can you believe that somebody gave me a bad rep mark for posting this question? Is somebody so afraid of Microsoft that they take it out on me? They didn't even have the courtesy to post why? That is the action of somebody pretty fickle. I know that a real Apache lover isn't afraid of somebody else's opinion.That's pretty much expected when you put words like Linux and Microsoft or IIS and Apache in one sentence :)

J.D.

[Help Desk]

That's pretty much expected when you put words like Linux and Microsoft or IIS and Apache in one sentence :)

J.D.
It's funny that people are offended by this. MS is taking lessons from Apache though. They are aiming for low-cost hosting like you see with Linux and PHP. I think MS finally realizes that these "small-time" web developers grow up and become "big-time" sooner than later.

[davedx]

That's pretty much expected when you put words like Linux and Microsoft or IIS and Apache in one sentence :)

J.D.

I found the inverse to be true... of course, it really depends on the intelligence and civility of the participants :D

ThinkBling, what are the advantages of running .NET code as stored procs? Improved connectivity is what springs to mind immediately here, but I don't really know, never had need to use stored procs... even though I spent about a year doing db coding at one point :confused:

[J.D.]

It's funny that people are offended by this.I find that most vocal are those who know only one OS :) Mac folks used to really brutal in debates in the before-OS-X days.

J.D.

[J.D.]

what are the advantages of running .NET code as stored procs? Improved connectivity is what springs to mind immediately here, but I don't really know, never had need to use stored procs... even though I spent about a year doing db coding at one pointI don't see how stored procedures improves connectivity. I also find that shifting much code into stored procedures makes the code much less flexible as it isn't possible to create SQL statements on the fly (effectively, you replaces your high-level language, e.g. Java/C#/C++/etc, with somewhat primitive SP language).

J.D.

[J.D.]

IIS 7 is where the "Huge" step will be.IIS6 was a rewrite.New installations will se the difference right away, but if you upgraded from IIS5, the server will be configured in IIS5 compatibility mode, which is somewhat less optimal from the performance and security point of view.

J.D.

[anthonycea]

Why is it so surprising to you guys that many hate M$, a convicted monopolist that locks out software companies and robs users by charging excessive fees :confused:

You can talk to kids in college studying computer science and most of them hate Microsoft.

Ask Josh our 13 year old coding star here at DP, he hates M$, there must be a reason that our brightest young people do not like Microsoft.

Sergey hated them too when he was young and set up Linux servers for friends and you see where he is today.

Hate and questioning the status quo is good.

[J.D.]

Why is it so surprising to you guys that many hate M$, a convicted monopolist that locks out software companies and robs users by charging excessive feesAnthony, these are two different things - the company and its software. We are discussing the software here - how fast, how flexible, how reliable, etc, it is, not the company.

J.D.

[anthonycea]

OK JD, I do understand that, but I was responding to Blings question and I quote it below.

Originally Posted by ThinkBling
It's funny that people are offended by this.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[redking]

Can you believe that somebody gave me a bad rep mark for posting this question? Is somebody so afraid of Microsoft that they take it out on me? They didn't even have the courtesy to post why? That is the action of somebody pretty fickle. I know that a real Apache lover isn't afraid of somebody else's opinion.

There are alot of dumb nubs here on Digital Point. I dunno why they would give you a bad rep mark for posting a honest, thoughtful question. Too many OS zealots.