> On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 11:12 -0700, Gregory Hill wrote: > > All kidding aside, IIS serves images much faster than Apache does, if > > the tests we did when I was working at Navitaire are indicative. > > Apache has never claimed to be the fastest server on the block. Because > of its design, I wouldn't be surprised to hear IIS is consistently > faster. Apache, on the other hand, is consistently more secure and more > robust. I'll gladly trade a few cycles for superior uptime.
I agree on the security aspect, which is why I use apache. The airline that was using the software, however, was more worried about performance since their servers were simply running out of memory under load. > > > Now, where's my flame-retarded suit... > > Saying that lighttpd is faster should not be a reason to worry about > (reasonable) flames. Because of its design, lighttpd is much lighter > weight and therefore faster. In balance, lighttpd is much less > extensible. Yeah, I know, I made the flame comment in regards to saying that IIS is actually decent at something, which is generally considered heresy among Linux folks that I've known in the past. Greg /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
