Are these hit rates based on standard Apache, or Apache + SGI performance patch? Haven't looked at Apache for over a year, but the performance patch makes a huge performance difference. But, in reality, most web sites don't require outrageous hit rates seeing as the industry's emphasis is more towards application server performance...
Anyway, combating M$ is based more on just hit rates - what about, licensing, portability, standards, security, usability... but this is the wrong place to discuss this. I myself tried to create a GUI in Java (http://netloony.sourceforge.net/) to help on the usability front, but didn't have enough time to complete it fully. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Erick de La Fuente" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 6:34 AM Subject: RE: The ways of combating M$ > > > > The November 2002 Netcraft Web Server Survey is out; > > > http://www.netcraft.com/survey/ > > > > Top Developers > > Developer October 2002 Percent November 2002 Percent Change > Apache 21258824 60.54 21699320 60.80 0.26 > Microsoft 10144453 28.89 10239423 28.69 -0.20 > Zeus 711998 2.03 775916 2.17 0.14 > iPlanet 478413 1.36 488094 1.37 0.01 > > Active Sites > > Developer October 2002 Percent November 2002 Percent Change > Apache 10470848 65.39 10729462 64.69 -0.70 > Microsoft 4013397 25.06 4244842 25.59 0.53 > Zeus 215957 1.35 271753 1.64 0.29 > iPlanet 227424 1.42 230902 1.39 -0.03 > > > Around the Net > > The survey records a net gain of around half a million sites this > month, as increases in the rest of the world outweighed a continuing > fall in the USA. Since the start of the year, the proportion of the > sites found by the survey in the US has fallen from 56% to 45%. This > primarily reflects the reduction of sites parked at domain > registration companies and the decline of advertising funded mass > hosting. However there has also been a net repatriation of existing > active sites out of America as hosting services in the rest of the > world have become more comparable with those in US. > > Climate change kills Hosting Dinosaurs > > [1]Genuity, nee BBN Planet, was put into administration yesterday, > with [2]Level 3 agreeing to buy its assets. Earlier in the month > Cable & Wireless [3]announced that it will close 23 out of 42 > datacenters, many acquired only a year ago when C&W bought Exodus > after Exodus itself had entered Chapter 11, and in the process turf > out customers currently paying over $300M in annualised revenue. > > Cable & Wireless' situation sounds appalling, but viewed from the > internet its decline appears not significantly worse than its near > competitors. Most of the best known colocation companies have seen > declines of in the region of 20% or more in the numbers of ip > addresses > running web servers over the last year. Digex, which shows a > 75% decline, divested part of its customer base to Allegiance > Telecom > during the year, while PSI has suffered a prolonged decline since > its > financial problems became clear to all in late 2000. > > With the exception of Cable & Wireless, all of the companies in the > first table below have suffered large losses and financial distress. > > Dinosaurs > Number of IP Addresses hosting Websites > Hoster Dec 01 Nov 02 Change > cw.net 11,980 9,653 -19.4% > exodus.net 10,797 8,605 -20.3% > gblx.net 6,681 4,767 -28.6% > above.net 5,838 4,133 -29.2% > level3.net 8,980 5,449 -39.3% > digex.com 9,883 2,374 -76.0% > psi.net 5,244 1,272 -75.7% > > > By contrast, the most successful hosting companies in terms of growth > of ip addresses hosting internet web sites, are smaller organisations > that have grown primarily with funding supplied by customers, rather > than investors. Some have had no external investor funding at all, > and > venture capitalists must deeply regret not only the extent to which > companies like Exodus and Digex were funded, but also that they > overlooked, or were denied access to, some of the safest > opportunities > in the industry. > > Primates > Number of IP Addresses hosting Websites > Hoster Dec 01 Nov 02 Change > rackshack.net 5,152 13,459 +161.2% > crystaltech.com 6,874 11,170 +62.5% > dialtoneinternet.net 22,441 31,351 +39.7% > ratiokontakt.de 6,444 8,375 +30.0% > he.net 9,659 12,493 +29.3% > datapipe.net 13,603 17,340 +27.5% > rackspace.com 8,776 11,160 +27.2% > > > Hosting industry participants will likely regard Rackshack as a > unique > company which has hit a sweet spot with customers, but will take note > that while the dedicated server industry was kickstarted by Cobalt, > today several of the fastest growing companies, typified by > Crystaltech and Datapipe, are ones that have given prominence to > hosting on Windows. > > > Microsoft RDS vulnerability not likely to be pervasive on web servers > > Microsoft have recently announced a [4]critical security > vulnerability in Microsoft's Data Access Components (MDAC). MDAC > contains a feature called Remote Data Services (RDS), a technology to > provide a database interface over HTTP. It has been an optional > component for Microsoft-IIS since version 4, and is integrated into > Internet Explorer. > > Some people have interpreted a widely sourced [5]Bloomberg news > article in which our figure of 4 million active web sites running > Microsoft-IIS and the word "Worm" appear in close proximity, as > implying that the majority of Microsoft-IIS web servers are > vulnerable. > > Although we do not have any directly observed information on how many > internet sites use RDS, the results we see on sites having their > security tested for the first time in our own [6]security testing > business indicate that the percentage of public Microsoft-IIS sites > using RDS is likely to be small. > > Approximately 8% of Microsoft-IIS sites tested in 2001 had RDS open > to > the public; in 2002 this has fallen to around 5%. This fall can be > largely explained by the gradual migration of sites to > Microsoft-IIS/5.0, where RDS is not enabled by default. Almost no > Microsoft-IIS/5.0 sites we have tested were offering RDS and the > proportion of Microsoft-IIS/4.0 sites offering RDS is fairly stable > at > around one in four. > > The caveats are that this is a small [hundreds of sites] and biased > [our customers are more likely to be running version 5.0 of > Microsoft-IIS than the internet as a whole] sample, rather than a > census, but we think that only a fairly small section of the > Microsoft-IIS community is likely to use RDS, and that it is rarely > enabled on public sites. Microsoft's security checklists and IIS > lockdown tool have long encouraged webmasters to disable RDS. > > > References > > 1. http://investor.genuity.com/notice.cfm > 2. http://www.l3.com/ > 3. > http://investor.ft.com/custom/ftmarkets-com/news/story.asp?FTSite=FTMW&g > uid={4E4F91D4-BC7D-421F-B7F8-F53448DC11BD} > 4. http://www.microsoft.com/security/security_bulletins/ms02-065.asp > 5. > http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories.nsf/Business/FB9BAFE31 > FD76D3386256C780026E0AC?OpenDocument&Headline=Microsoft+flaw+could+let+h > ackers+control+PCs,+servers > 6. http://www.netcraft.com/security/ > > > > Internet Research from Netcraft. > > Netcraft does commercial internet research projects. These include > custom cuts on the Web Server Survey data, hosting industry analysis, > corporate use of internet technology and bespoke projects. All of the > data > is gathered through network exploration, not teleresearch. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Network Security Testing from Netcraft. > > Netcraft provides automated network security testing of customer > networks and consultancy audits of ecommerce sites, Clients include IBM, > > Hewlett Packard, Deloitte & Touche, Energis, Britannic Asset Management, > Guardian Royal Exchange, Lloyds of London, Laura Ashley, etc. > > > Details at http://www.netcraft.com/security/ > > > To unsubscribe from the Netcraft Web Server Survey Announcements list > send the message > > unsubscribe webserver-survey > > to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To resubscribe send the message > > subscribe webserver-survey > > > > Mike > -- > Mike Prettejohn > mhp@@netcraft.com Phone +44 1225 447500 Fax +44 1225 448600 Netcraft > Rockfield House Granville Road Bath BA1 9BQ England > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Webmaster33 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 02 December 2002 04:34 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: The ways of combating M$ > > > >yes apache is stable and takes up less space but I doubt it could > >handle many hits per second > > Is that true, that Apache can not handle so many hits/second like IIS? I > searched for some performance comparison article, > but there are not too much. Some of them: > > Apache 2.0 Beats IIS at Its Own Game: > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,3763,00.asp > > eWeek Labs preliminary tests of Apache 2.0 & IIS 5.0: > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,15300,00.asp > > Apache Avoids Most Security Woes (very interesting): > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1866,00.asp > > IIS: Stay or Switch?: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,40751,00.asp > > The Anatomy of a Frontal Assault on Apache: Microsoft's Web Server > Strategy > http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=1999-06-28-023-05-NW-SM > > How does Apache compare to other servers? > http://httpd.apache.org/docs/misc/FAQ.html#compare > (It is outdated, the mentioned service is not working fine) > > M$ always produced big & slow applications. I do not think, that IIS can > > have higher performance, than an optimized Apache. > Apache should handle more STATIC html pages per second, compared to IIS. > The DYNAMIC page performance using Apache + script interpreter(Perl, > PHP), is another thing, it can not compared to STATIC performance. > > Apache developer opinions? > What is performance of Apache compared to IIS? > > Webmaster33 > > > > *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** > On 2002. 12. 01. at 19:15 DaMouse wrote: > > >the user interface that comes with ApacheConf is lovely and if it was > >added to the standard distribution could go along way, but another > >thing that M$ gets better at is making there servers able to withstand > >almost anything, yes apache is stable and takes up less space but I > >doubt it could handle many hits per second my $0.02 > > > >-DaMouse > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > *********** END REPLIED MESSAGE *********** > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
