Coffeehouse Thread

33 posts

Apache and IIS

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Keskos

    Manip wrote:

    It is a fair point to make. I could say Mac sucks and Windows is a 'super-system' because I simply am able to use Windows to better effect. The results and productivity I would get from a Windows system would be a reflection of my experience with it; therefore we can assume that if your inexperienced with Apache would lead to poor productivity and implementation and knowing IIS well you would get better results with IIS.



    Don't worry about Manip.

    Apache doesn't scale as good as IIS. That's for sure. Nobody who has  credibility would say that Apache is faster than IIS or can scale better than IIS. Some just like to say something is better because they read that it is open source.

    For your needs, probably IIS or another server is better. There are servers which probably scale even better than IIS.

    Perl and PHP are jokes compared to Asp.net or J2EE today of course, because as you mentioned there is no debugging, tracing and many more other important features. But still PHP and Perl have values, lots of tutorials, easy to learn, start developing.... Learning ASP.Net and J2EE requires more initial investment then PHP. PHP, ASP, Perl are the old development methodologies, but those old methodologies have lots of legacy code around.

    But still for many, Apache is a good choice. You have so many options, modules, and tutorials on the web. All of these also add a lot of value to Apache. Overall IIS seems to be a better solution for your case.

  • User profile image
    eagle

    Oops, there goes yet another thread – keskoosed!

  • User profile image
    Jeremy W

    Let me just throw my hat in here, to try and get the discussion back on track a little.

    Ease of Use: Either. It really depends on your experience. Personally I'm more comfortable with IIS, but that's becuase I have 10 years experience. I can run it, I can secure it, I can manage it and I can diagnose issues very quickly (hello sysadmin forum?).

    Web Apps: Apache is faster for Perl / PHP, but that's because the developers of both groups wrote crap interpreters for IIS. All IIS is "doing" behind the scenes is calling interpreters / EXE's depending on page extension. It isn't "faster" at calling anything.

    Cluster: Apache clustering is much easier than IIS clustering. But, utiliziing app servers is much easier with IIS, which is something you are quite likely to do if you're looking at clustered environments. That said, neither offer active / passive clustering. They're both simply an active cluster, and neither handle failover very well (though IIS does it better).

    Speed: Agh, I'm not going to touch this one. But, Apache running on Linux will take less resources than IIS running on Win2k3. This is primarily due to OS resources. That doesn't mean either is "faster", and generally "faster" will depend on what you measure and how things are optimized.

    Customizability: Again, it depends. If you're talking .htaccess / mod_rewrite / etc, yeah Apache wins hands down. IIS has these extensions which allow for the exact same thing, but they're addins and the management interface for performance issues is crap. But, if customizability is things like integration with AD / eDirectory / LDAP, IIS wins hands down. It really depends what this broad subject means.

    Portability: What is this? Cross platform? If so, yeah. Apache is installable on all major platforms. That doesn't mean all your customizations will work, but the vast, vast majority will.

    ==============

    As far as Deviate's little post, note what he's comparing. IIS 6.0 WEB ADMIN vs APACHE. Come on. Does anyone use Web Admin on the actual server? Why do that when you can set up a Citrix box for with 5 licenses for 1200$ (not including hardware) and actually get access to the full MMC and everything from anywhere, anytime, using only a browser?

    ==============

    And, I'm not even going to touch "Apache doesnt' scale as well as IIS". Both are used in HUGE install bases of 5,000+ servers. I've worked in such configurations for both software packages.

    I've worked on projects with 20,000,000+ users for Perl, PHP, ASP and .NET systems (and JSP, CFML). All of these work fine if properly configured.

    For someone who's inexperienced this would take a while (me with CFML, for instance). But, for someone experienced it's a breeze (many of my friends with PHP / Perl).

    It all comes down to experience but ultimately both software packages are world class. Period.

  • User profile image
    BHpaddock

    Jeremy W. wrote:

    As far as Deviate's little post, note what he's comparing. IIS 6.0 WEB ADMIN vs APACHE. Come on. Does anyone use Web Admin on the actual server? Why do that when you can set up a Citrix box for with 5 licenses for 1200$ (not including hardware) and actually get access to the full MMC and everything from anywhere, anytime, using only a browser?



    That's not at all what Deviate's post was about.

    He posted a complete list of all IIS 6.0 vulnerabilities reported since its release.  If you look, you'll see that there's only one.  And it's in the webadmin interface, which is not installed be default with IIS.

    Apache 2.0 has nearly 20 vulnerabilities that affect the "out of the box" setup.

    Yes, Apache 2.0 has been out longer.  But IIS' perfect security record for over 1.5 years is very impressive.

    Then again, IIS 6.0 was a completle rewrite focused on security, where Apache 2.0 is still just a collection of patches to 1.3.

  • User profile image
    thechris

    i'm an advocate of "competition".  i wouldn't want either apache or IIS to be the only option.  i like things like interoperability and open standards because it allows for competition to enter a market.

    this extends into all aspects, like apache vs IIS, and IE vs FF, and MS vs OSS, or KDE vs Gnome.

  • User profile image
    Jeremy W

    BHpaddock wrote:
    Jeremy W. wrote:
    As far as Deviate's little post, note what he's comparing. IIS 6.0 WEB ADMIN vs APACHE. Come on. Does anyone use Web Admin on the actual server? Why do that when you can set up a Citrix box for with 5 licenses for 1200$ (not including hardware) and actually get access to the full MMC and everything from anywhere, anytime, using only a browser?



    That's not at all what Deviate's post was about.

    He posted a complete list of all IIS 6.0 vulnerabilities reported since its release.  If you look, you'll see that there's only one.  And it's in the webadmin interface, which is not installed be default with IIS.

    Apache 2.0 has nearly 20 vulnerabilities that affect the "out of the box" setup.

    Yes, Apache 2.0 has been out longer.  But IIS' perfect security record for over 1.5 years is very impressive.

    Then again, IIS 6.0 was a completle rewrite focused on security, where Apache 2.0 is still just a collection of patches to 1.3.


    Wow, did I ever misread that, eh? Sorry Deviate, and anyone reading Smiley

  • User profile image
    Keskos

    Jeremy W. wrote:

    Wow, did I ever misread that, eh? Sorry Deviate, and anyone reading Smiley


    Let me try to get the discussion back on track. Apache 2.0 is also a rewrite actually. I am not sure how complete it is, but it is completely incompatible with the old architecture. But it is true that Apache is not more secure than IIS. Almost each new version has security fixes.

    Jeremey let's keep on topic?

  • User profile image
    wwvine

    OFF TOPIC

    Testing LiveID association.... ? thanks

  • User profile image
    Ray6

    Jeremy W. wrote:

    The problem is that it's sites. Not servers. More IIS boxes are 1-site and 1-app boxes. For instance, GoDaddy parks 10,000 domains on one instance of Apache. In fact most domain companies park incredibly large numbers of domains on one server, which skews the results completely.



    I think Netcraft also gives figures for active domains, a little further down the page. Taking this figure, they reckon that Apache stands at 47% and IIS  stands at 37%


  • User profile image
    JeremyJ

    Ray6 wrote:
    
    Jeremy W. wrote:

    The problem is that it's sites. Not servers. More IIS boxes are 1-site and 1-app boxes. For instance, GoDaddy parks 10,000 domains on one instance of Apache. In fact most domain companies park incredibly large numbers of domains on one server, which skews the results completely.



    I think Netcraft also gives figures for active domains, a little further down the page. Taking this figure, they reckon that Apache stands at 47% and IIS  stands at 37%




    Check the date of the original post.  It is from 2004.

  • User profile image
    drhowarddrf​ine

    manickernel wrote:
    What did suprise me is that when money starts to change hands not too many want to trust Apache/Linux...
    Don't confuse money changing hands with "trust".  Even with large corporations buying Microsoft stuff, which tend to use "safe" technology (Nobody got fired for buying IBM), it's interesting to note that MS still only gets half that market and still only 22% share overall.  And we all know how aggressive MS can be.

    I don't recall if it was NetCraft or not but the numbers are also skewed by just three organizations: Facebook, MySpace and one other (I forgot).  Removing those three companies greatly diminishes IIS usage.

  • User profile image
    Xaero_​Vincent

    drhowarddrfine wrote:
    Don't confuse money changing hands with "trust".  Even with large corporations buying Microsoft stuff, which tend to use "safe" technology (Nobody got fired for buying IBM), it's interesting to note that MS still only gets half that market and still only 22% share overall.  And we all know how aggressive MS can be.

    I don't recall if it was NetCraft or not but the numbers are also skewed by just three organizations: Facebook, MySpace and one other (I forgot).  Removing those three companies greatly diminishes IIS usage.


    Yes, MySpace is a huge contributor to IIS's marketshare. I think it serves all the tens of millions of profile web pages.

    Anyway, let this thread die... its only four years old.

  • User profile image
    phreaks

    I'm sorry; I have never really bought into these statistics.

    In my 10 years of working, only 1 company that I've worked for used anything other than IIS.

    The one and only company that didn't use IIS was using apache, it was my first job out of college, way back in 1997; and I was hired specifically to port the hundreds of perl driven web sites running on Solaris and Apache to NT 4 and ASP.

  • User profile image
    Dodo

    wwvine wrote:
    OFF TOPIC

    Testing LiveID association.... ? thanks
    Seriously, are you kidding? Digging out a thread with something off topic? Expressionless
    Why bother creating a new thread...? Perplexed
    Holy crap...

  • User profile image
    drhowarddrf​ine

    phreaks wrote:
    I'm sorry; I have never really bought into these statistics.

    In my 10 years of working, only 1 company that I've worked for used anything other than IIS.

    The one and only company that didn't use IIS was using apache, it was my first job out of college, way back in 1997; and I was hired specifically to port the hundreds of perl driven web sites running on Solaris and Apache to NT 4 and ASP.

    You need to get out more boy and see the real world.

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.