1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

IIS vs. Apache

Discussion in 'Apache' started by Help Desk, Mar 16, 2005.

  1. #1
    If IIS hosting was just as cheap as Apache hosting, would your opinion on IIS change at all?
    SEMrush
     
    Help Desk, Mar 16, 2005 IP
    SEMrush
  2. expat

    expat Stranger from a far land

    Messages:
    873
    Likes Received:
    18
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #2
    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
     
    expat, Mar 16, 2005 IP
    mushroom likes this.
  3. J.D.

    J.D. Peon

    Messages:
    1,198
    Likes Received:
    64
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #3
    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.
     
    J.D., Mar 16, 2005 IP
  4. redking

    redking Member

    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    43
    #4
    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.
     
    redking, Mar 16, 2005 IP
  5. Help Desk

    Help Desk Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,365
    Likes Received:
    25
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #5
    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?
     
    Help Desk, Mar 21, 2005 IP
  6. anthonycea

    anthonycea Banned

    Messages:
    13,378
    Likes Received:
    342
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #6
    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:
     
    anthonycea, Mar 21, 2005 IP
  7. mushroom

    mushroom Peon

    Messages:
    369
    Likes Received:
    15
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #7
    Wow 4 gig. :p

    There is no maximum database size for MySQL running on Linux. :cool:
     
    mushroom, Mar 21, 2005 IP
  8. digitalpoint

    digitalpoint Overlord of no one Staff

    Messages:
    38,300
    Likes Received:
    2,604
    Best Answers:
    461
    Trophy Points:
    710
    Digital Goods:
    29
    #8
    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.
     
    digitalpoint, Mar 21, 2005 IP
  9. nevetS

    nevetS Evolving Dragon

    Messages:
    2,544
    Likes Received:
    211
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    135
    #9
    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.
     
    nevetS, Mar 21, 2005 IP
  10. J.D.

    J.D. Peon

    Messages:
    1,198
    Likes Received:
    64
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #10
    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.
     
    J.D., Mar 21, 2005 IP
  11. digitalpoint

    digitalpoint Overlord of no one Staff

    Messages:
    38,300
    Likes Received:
    2,604
    Best Answers:
    461
    Trophy Points:
    710
    Digital Goods:
    29
    #11
    Did you run that test with Apache for Windows by chance?
     
    digitalpoint, Mar 21, 2005 IP
  12. J.D.

    J.D. Peon

    Messages:
    1,198
    Likes Received:
    64
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #12
    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.
     
    J.D., Mar 21, 2005 IP
  13. digitalpoint

    digitalpoint Overlord of no one Staff

    Messages:
    38,300
    Likes Received:
    2,604
    Best Answers:
    461
    Trophy Points:
    710
    Digital Goods:
    29
    #13
    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.
     
    digitalpoint, Mar 21, 2005 IP
  14. J.D.

    J.D. Peon

    Messages:
    1,198
    Likes Received:
    64
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #14
    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.
     
    J.D., Mar 21, 2005 IP
  15. neterslandreau

    neterslandreau Peon

    Messages:
    279
    Likes Received:
    8
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #15
    *** Neters raises his coffee cup..
    Here, here!
     
    neterslandreau, Mar 22, 2005 IP
  16. Help Desk

    Help Desk Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,365
    Likes Received:
    25
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #16
    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, Mar 22, 2005 IP
  17. Help Desk

    Help Desk Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,365
    Likes Received:
    25
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #17
    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.
     
    Help Desk, Mar 22, 2005 IP
  18. anthonycea

    anthonycea Banned

    Messages:
    13,378
    Likes Received:
    342
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #18
    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.
     
    anthonycea, Mar 22, 2005 IP
  19. Help Desk

    Help Desk Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,365
    Likes Received:
    25
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #19
    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, Mar 23, 2005 IP
  20. Help Desk

    Help Desk Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,365
    Likes Received:
    25
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #20
    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.
     
    Help Desk, Mar 28, 2005 IP
    Mia and neterslandreau like this.