Yes you can configure Website and IIS on the same system, just assign
different ports. It isn't a very valid test, you really need both systems on
separate boxes to be fair in the test. IIS smoke Website with static pages.
That is because IIS write directly to the IP stack rather than using the
API's. MS can do that as they own the server software, stack and IIS, but it
is harder for third party companies to use those undocumented features. But
or dynamic pages like ASP or CF under IIS, they write to the API's so then
Website and IIS are very similar in performance. IIS and MS knows that the
Ziff Davis web benchmarks buts a high value to static web pages so they
tweaked it to do well in that test.
But for SSL and for dynamic content IIS and Website are neck and neck and
Website is my experience far more stable than IIS. I think there has been 5
or 6 Website security patches in 4 years. Last I knew there were over 200
just for IIS. Ok, that means one or two security patches for Website, and
three of them were sample apps that you shouldn't install on a production
server or one or two IIS patches every other week from MS.
For ASP 2 or 3 support the only solution is IIS. Microsoft has made ASP
proprietary and can't be run under Website or any other Non-MS web server.
ASP 1.x works just fine under Website. In fact some claim it is more stable
under Website than IIS. But with ASP2/3, Microsoft on purpose shut out other
NT web servers. It is their product, they can do what they want, but it
hurts ASP growth because MS won't support it under other NT servers and they
should.
Hands down, IIS can't scale to large hosting and MS even admits so. 100 to
200 is all IIS can handle on a single server. Website can easily handle
20,000 domains on a single server and it has been tested to 100,000 with
almost no degradation except on start-up. With that many domains it does
take several minutes for the web server to boot. Also Website and CF are
very easy to cluster and load balance using a load balancer and dedicated
storage device. It simply can't be done with IIS unless you spend big bucks
for WLBS, Windows 2000 Enterprise and ClusterCats. You are talking several
10's of thousands of dollars for an IIS cluster solution. To cluster Website
all you need is multiple copies of Website and a load balancer and you are
set. You can set up a 4-way cluster with dedicated load balancing software
for less than 10,000 plus the cost of the servers and NT. It is probably
three times more for the similar IIS solution and it is still pretty
difficult to host 10's of thousands of domains on the IIS cluster. Yet it is
a cake deal to host that many sites with Website.
IIS is a great product and you can't beat the price. But if you need carrier
class reliability and scalability and can use CF instead of ASP 3, Website
is a pretty good solution.
- Steve
Steve Pierce, HDL
"Co-Location starting $99 per month, no setup fee"
(734) 482-9682 | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://HDL.com
= Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Bud [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 6:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Web servers
On 9/7/00, Benjamin S. Rogers penned:
>For
>this matter, and the fact that I don't run that many domains on a single
>server, I only run ColdFusion sites on IIS. In fact, I saw a tremendous
>performance gain switching my ColdFusion sites from WebSite to IIS to the
>extent that competitors were asking what we had done to our service to
speed
>it up. :)
Wow! I'd like to see some comparison tests somewhere on this. The
only change you made was switching the CF sites to IIS? They stayed
on the same server? You weren't running hundreds of sites on Website,
then moved a few CF sites to IIS? In that case I could see there
being a difference.
Can IIS and Website both be run on the same server? If so, I'd like
to install it and see if there is a noticeable difference. I find it
tough to swallow (not that I don't believe you) since the main reason
I forked out close to 1,000 bucks for Website is that it was/is
supposedly built with CF in mind.
>There are some other things to think about as well. If you may need to
>support ASP pages, you'll definitely want to go with IIS.
Why?
--
Bud Schneehagen - Tropical Web Creations
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
ColdFusion Solutions / eCommerce Development
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.twcreations.com/
954.721.3452
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or
send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in
the body.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To Unsubscribe visit
http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a
message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
