What is the most reliable and popular web server (hardware and software)?
-
I often hear people say that IIS on Windows server is not reliable and not suitable for a big site. What is reliable and popular one? Does anyone know if there is any analysis/statistics done on different web server hardware and software?
TOMZ_KV
I have about 50+ sites hosted on Windows Server with IIS and find it completely reliable. You must remember that 90% of the anti-MS tirade you hear comes from a quasi-political bias, though even that is giving it more credit that it deserves.... it's just an ill-thought out belief that if it;'s big it must be bad...
-
Tomz_KV wrote:
I often hear people say that IIS on Windows server is not reliable and not suitable for a big site.
Good to know. My coorporation in fact has only used IIS so far. I have not seen any of the web servers running for 6 months without rebooting or iisreset. I am curious to see if others running IIS have the same experience and if other web servers also need to restart periodically.
TOMZ_KV
-
I have about 50+ sites hosted on Windows Server with IIS and find it completely reliable. You must remember that 90% of the anti-MS tirade you hear comes from a quasi-political bias, though even that is giving it more credit that it deserves.... it's just an ill-thought out belief that if it;'s big it must be bad...
-
extremely rarely
-
extremely rarely
-
apache on linux. Apache is the most used web server (although IIS is catching up). Even microsoft.com ran on apache just 2 years ago. I would say one of the big reasons for its popularity is that it fits very well in the rack server and vps ([^]). One of the big benefits is to run many web servers on their own virtual machine inside of a rack server without the overhead of having a windowing environment installed. On top of that linux machines do not need to be updated frequently. And the updates can be totally automated (cron job to update 1 time a week) if you want that.
John
modified on Monday, November 17, 2008 10:33 AM
In addition to what Nemanja Trifunovic wrote, the only major MS site to run on an OSS platform was hotmail, which was written on a BSD platform and continued to be until a few years after MS bought the original creators out.
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
-
I must have done something wrong. My servers never run over 6 months without a rebooting. iisreset is more frequent than I would like. Do most of your sites host interactive web database applications?
TOMZ_KV
Yes, they are - almost all. I have one server of my own, hosting just a handful of sites, and the rest of my client base is hosted with a third-party hosting company. Some are on shared hosting solutions, some are on dedicated servers of their own. But all (bar one!) Windows... My own server will re-boot by itself preiodically anyway as automatic updates require, but apart from that, I never have had to re-boot it myself to resolve some problem or other. It just purrs away quietly all by itself, doing it's own thing.... as for the hosting-company shared servers... all I can say is, I don't often have downtime problems. And as for their dedicated servers, it's the same story as for my own one: I have never had to go in and manually re-boot any of them.
-
Tomz_KV wrote:
I often hear people say that IIS on Windows server is not reliable and not suitable for a big site.
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
Fortune 1000 companies never heard that, apparently[^]
Anyone have a more recent survey? That one stops in mid 07.
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
-
I often hear people say that IIS on Windows server is not reliable and not suitable for a big site. What is reliable and popular one? Does anyone know if there is any analysis/statistics done on different web server hardware and software?
TOMZ_KV
More how you use it that matters. There are some awful Apache powered sites and some great IIS powered sites (and vice versa.) Other factors are more important (licensing, administration, deployment, support costs, skills, resources, architecture, load-balancers, DNS, firewalls, CDN, client-side performance etc.) If you really want an answer then; You are on a Microsoft website which says to me you are a .NET coder which says to me go with IIS. I choose LAMP though as that is where my skills are. Actually more LAMR (Linux, Apache, MySQL, Ruby on Rails) than LAMP but LAMR sounds... well... lame.
cheers, Paul M. Watson.
-
More how you use it that matters. There are some awful Apache powered sites and some great IIS powered sites (and vice versa.) Other factors are more important (licensing, administration, deployment, support costs, skills, resources, architecture, load-balancers, DNS, firewalls, CDN, client-side performance etc.) If you really want an answer then; You are on a Microsoft website which says to me you are a .NET coder which says to me go with IIS. I choose LAMP though as that is where my skills are. Actually more LAMR (Linux, Apache, MySQL, Ruby on Rails) than LAMP but LAMR sounds... well... lame.
cheers, Paul M. Watson.
-
I often hear people say that IIS on Windows server is not reliable and not suitable for a big site. What is reliable and popular one? Does anyone know if there is any analysis/statistics done on different web server hardware and software?
TOMZ_KV
MySpace runs on IIS[^]. Is that big enough for you?
The StartPage Randomizer | The Windows Cheerleader | Twitter
-
BTW if anyone tells you IIS is not good for big sites; MySpace. You might not like MySpace but they do massive load* and it is all .NET and IIS. They gave a talk at Mix'06 and the primary issues were the same issues LAMP users face; software and hardware architecture. * Still way more than Facebook. Don't let Facebok fanboys mix you up, MySpace kicks their arse in every area including making money. OK, OK, except growth. Facebook has better growth but it will top-out just like MySpace has. And they still won't be making any money.
cheers, Paul M. Watson.
-
MySpace runs on IIS[^]. Is that big enough for you?
The StartPage Randomizer | The Windows Cheerleader | Twitter
heh, geniuses think alike and all that ;)
cheers, Paul M. Watson.
-
heh, geniuses think alike and all that ;)
cheers, Paul M. Watson.
I would have thought that one of the defining qualities of a genius is that s/he *doesn't* think like anyone else! baa-aah! :)
-
John M. Drescher wrote:
microsoft.com ran on apache just 2 years ago.
It did not. For protection of dns attacks, it was using services of akamai, which runs on linux, but microsoft.com was always on Windows/IIS
I can vouch for this answer as someone who knew the site first-hand not-so-long-ago. Microsoft.com has run on Windows Server/IIS since at least 1999 (the point at which I became personally knowledgeable about it). I presume it did before that, as well.
Caffeine - it's what's for breakfast! (and lunch, and dinner, and...)
-
I would have thought that one of the defining qualities of a genius is that s/he *doesn't* think like anyone else! baa-aah! :)
I think you just called us both stupid. Doh!
cheers, Paul M. Watson.
-
MySpace runs on IIS[^]. Is that big enough for you?
The StartPage Randomizer | The Windows Cheerleader | Twitter
-
I can vouch for this answer as someone who knew the site first-hand not-so-long-ago. Microsoft.com has run on Windows Server/IIS since at least 1999 (the point at which I became personally knowledgeable about it). I presume it did before that, as well.
Caffeine - it's what's for breakfast! (and lunch, and dinner, and...)
I believe I have figured that out. The webhosting company that microsoft used did use apache but to cache instead of host the IIS webpages. I can say it was very shocking to me to see apache timeout errors from time to time on a microsoft site. I have not seen these recently though, but I rarely go to microsoft.com anymore.
John
-
I think you just called us both stupid. Doh!
cheers, Paul M. Watson.
Well, these things are all relative you know... ;-)
-
Well, these things are all relative you know... ;-)
Paul, meet brick. Brick, meet Paul. You are relatives.
cheers, Paul M. Watson.