I have used both IIS and Apache for a couple of years, on both small
do-it-yourself home-brew web pages, and large scale commercial servers. I've
found that if you are having performance problems, switching to/from
apache/IIS isn't likely to make much difference. If you are really serving
enough data to max out either, then you might need a faster box, or you
might need to invest in a load balancer and a couple more servers,
regardless of which you are running. In my case, it was almost always
something behind the server that was the bottleneck, not the web server
itself. On one project I worked on we had to have 6 MSSQL servers to keep up
with two IIS servers, and the only reason we had two was for redundancy, we
only needed one.
The decision to use Apache or IIS should be made based on several factors -
cost (you have to have an OS that IIS runs on/comes with), knowledge with
windows/xnix, what you will be doing with it such as running php stuff or
dot net apps or something that is known to work with IIS/Apache, personal
preferences (you hate/love Microsoft), etc. Performance isn't usually at the
top of the list. I like the KISSUWW principle - Keep It Simple, Stupid and
Use Whatever Works. If you are a Microsoft fanboy and have experience with
Windows, maybe you want to give IIS a try. If you hate anything Microsoft,
then use Apache on linux and peace, love and happiness will be yours. If you
are a newbie just getting started, load up Apache on your windows/linux box,
read the docs on how to configure http.conf, and you will be up and running
in no time.
(What diseased mind at Microsoft invented that horrid IIS gui, anyhow?)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hemminger Corey SrA 735 CES/CEUD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 6:30 AM
Subject: RE: [hlds] Web server
Just curious, but how many people have used both. These fights are
starting to sound like all the other fan boy fights like windows or
Linux, Intel or AMD, NVIDIA or ati. In most of those cases I've found a
lot of people have only used one product for so long that they get
attached and no matter what think it's better, where I have found that
it all depends on what you want to do one will be better in some
instances and in others the other is better, and ultimately they both
are really close and it's which you prefer based on your criteria.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Clayton Macleod
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 12:52 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [hlds] Web server
like I said, both camps claim better performance. You just happen to be
in the IIS camp. There are just as many in the apache camp that show
apache performing better. The fact that you were able to get better
performance out of IIS doesn't necessarily mean anything more than you
have more IIS knowledge...
On 8/5/05, James Tucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
putting one name before the other. Frankly, screw that. I have
deployed BOTH (no names required this time) in very high volume and
very low volume environments. One product has outperformed the other
IN BOTH scenarios depending on the final layer of development that WE
put on top.
--
Clayton Macleod
_______________________________________________
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
