On 8/5/05, Dustin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not sure about the Apache, but I use IIS 6 and 5 for both Windows Server > 2003 and Windows Server 2000/Windows XP PRO and have had well over 100 > connections at a time. So I don't belive he will have a limitation there.
There are some major limitations with Windows XP both on the networking and the application server layers. These are all well documented on MSDN and TechNet and DO NOT apply to the Windows Server product line. There's a dirty trick to lift IIS 5.1 on XP to allow 40 concurrent connections, but IIRC it won't go any higher. It's a property of the w3cservice IIRC. > Just make sure you do not try to setup IIS 5 under XP Home edition, It is > not avaible so you would be forced to use Apache in that event. true. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jordan Barker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 8:15 PM > Subject: Re: [hlds] Web server > > > > Wow, I can't believe this debate is ... so heated. Indeed. > > > > The guy just wants to host a few pages on his home connection, I doubt > > the page is going to be a high profile target for any non-obvious 0-day > > security vulnerability (all major http daemons have had their fare share > > in recent years) My responses regarding security were merely pointing out that neither is more secure by default - sure one comes on a cd and so needs updating, but what the hell, apache *never* get's updated. I should give up laughing and start crying. > > > > Nor are the performance differences going to matter for a few likely > > static pages. Wow, another true statement, this mails on fire :) > > > > My advice, if the original poster hasn't run to the hills We can hope not. > > > > IIS [Consumer/Limited flavor] Pro's: > > 1. GUI Interface for setup. therefore you might find it more intuitive > > > > IIS Cons [I'm not up to date here, unfortunately]: > > 1. Limited to 10 concurrent connections (maybe less?, not really an > > issue though here) This can be lifted to 40 IIRC. Try looking on google for the answer. > > > > > > Apache Win32 Pros: ( www.apache.org ) > > 1. Flat httpd.conf file for setup, which is fairly simple if you read > > the comments, also makes one-step restoration of default settings and > > soforth possible > > 2. No connection limits or anything of the sort In response to 2 - there are still limits within the XP networking subsystem as of service pack 2. In general these aren't going to be important for hosting over DSL though. > > Apache Win32 Cons: > > 1. httpd.conf isn't always that simple, especially at first > > > > > > I personally prefer Apache2 Win32 for my own similar small stuff, since > > the artificial connection limit of IIS bothers me on a subconcious > > level, and I feel more at home with a .conf file than an obfuscated GUI, > > > > But that doesn't apply to everyone. I'm surprised that no one has suggested minihttpd as yet. Hell what about going and finding one of the "example web server" applications available for most programming languages? > > > > _______________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > > please visit: > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please > visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
