IIS vs. Apache

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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

 

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

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

 

Wow 4 gig.

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

 

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.

 

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

Code (markup):

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.

Agree. I think it's a nightmare from the security point of view in the hosted environment.

J.D.

 

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.

 

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.

 

*** Neters raises his coffee cup..
Here, here!

 

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,...).

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.