Re[4]: [PHP] Re: php server on Windows
On Saturday, June 15, 2002 at 3:48:03 AM, you wrote: An opinion was requested, and I gave it. And everyone is entitled to an opinion, but what you gave was the typical down with windows response when you clearly have not evidence to back it up. I will make a few pointed comments and then I will stop wasting my time and the time of the others on this list. I would also like to apologise to the other subscribers to this list, but I feel that this is an important topic. 1) If you do not know why Unix and its various derivatives are a better, meaning more flexible, more secure, faster, and more stable, then you probably don't know much about Unix. I maintain a mixture of Linux, FreeBSD and Win2k servers. I know a lot about the Unix platform, it's structure and it's pros and cons. However, once again you have made several claims about how it is 'better' than Win2k but without evidence to back them up. Why is Unix more flexible? I can't think of anything I can do on Unix but not on Win2k. Why is it more secure? I have been running several Win2k servers for nearly 2 years and am yet to have a major security problem (I am certain that the reputation IIS has gained in relation to security is due to incompetent admins, not the product - a side effect of making it relatively easy to configure). Why is it more stable? Since Win2k was released I have managed uptimes comparable to the Unix-based machines I maintain. 2) I don't consider any Windows platform stable for commercial serving needs. I've had Unix boxes run continuously for over 3 years some as many as 5 and only one time was the crash caused by the operating system. Want to tell me how many times you've seen the blue screen of death on a Windows box. How many BSODs have I seen on any Windows box? Loads. How many have I seen on the Win2k servers I maintain? None! 3) Unix is faster for two main reasons - it has a real file system and it doesn't have all GUI overhead cluttering up CPU/Disk/Bus resources. While the GUI if a great feature on development boxes and workstations its a complete waste of resources on a server. 'It has a real file system'. Meaning? I assume you mean ext2 which is a non-journaling and therefore highly fragile file system. Compare this to NTFS which is a journaling file system. The performance loss by adding the journaling is minor but has major benefits. Hmmm, the GUI. You mean the one that shows the login screen? That tiny stub that takes up virtually no resources while it is waiting for a user to log in? What you have said is like saying don't install KDE on your server, it will take up valuable resources whether you use it or not. 4) If all you need to do is design web sites Win 2000 (don't use the FAT32 file system) / apache ( not 2.x) and PHP / Pearl / cgi is OK. But if you want to be a successful webmaster and provide your clients / bosses / end users with the best possible service / speed and uptime - learn and use Unix. I am a successful sysadmin (at least my customers think so) and I do provide the best 'possible service / speed and uptime' on both Unix and Win2k platforms. Suffice to say that you are yet to convince me. 5) If you want to learn how to configure the hardware - I'll teach you that too. Just contact me off list. What gave you the impression that I need help? I butcher and build machines every day, but even if I did need help, I would be reluctant to accept it from someone who can't spell Perl and doesn't even understand the purpose of /tmp on the Unix platform. Nuff said. Not quite. I would just like to say that I don't preach that either platform is 'better'. It all depends on the job in hand and I will choose a platform based on my requirements. I would certainly not base my decision on the foundation-less spoutings of someone on a mailing list (that includes me, although I am trying to walk the neutral path). My only hope is that people will stop dismissing one of the options because of a bad reputation that was created many moons ago and will therefore take a while to counter. -- Stuart -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] Re: php server on Windows
You can run PHP as a module / extension for apache or let Apache load and run the php.exe program for each php file. Loading and running the program in quick succession strains the system somewht but the extension is always loaded and is just used when needed - much faster and efficient. Phil Schwarzmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... So I'm thinking about setting up a little php/mysql web server here at work and want to use Windows as my platform instead of Linux and have a couple questions... I know that PHP on Windows has some limitations as compared to Linux. What are these limitations? Which version of Windows would be best ? Is this gonna be a real pain in the ass to get PHP MySQL Apache Windows to get along well? Can I use IIS instead of Apache ? Thanks! -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] Re: php server on Windows
Windows / PHP is fine for development work but I would never put a production site on a Windows box (With all due apologies to you Windows fans). Put your site on a *nix box with apache its a heck of a lot faster and a heck of a lot more stable and a heck of a lot easier to configure and upgrade. Just my 2 cents Bruce Karstedt President Technology Consulting Associates, Ltd. Tel: 847-735-9488 Fax: 847-735-9474 -Original Message- From: Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 3:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PHP] Re: php server on Windows Phil Schwarzmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... So I'm thinking about setting up a little php/mysql web server here at work and want to use Windows as my platform instead of Linux and have a couple questions... I know that PHP on Windows has some limitations as compared to Linux. What are these limitations? Which version of Windows would be best ? Is this gonna be a real pain in the ass to get PHP MySQL Apache Windows to get along well? Can I use IIS instead of Apache ? Thanks! -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] Re: php server on Windows
Do you have any benchmarks? -Original Message- fans). Put your site on a *nix box with apache its a heck of a lot faster This message is intended for the sole use of the individual and entity to whom it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended addressee, nor authorized to receive for the intended addressee, you are hereby notified that you may not use, copy, disclose or distribute to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply email and delete the message. Thank you very much. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] Re: php server on Windows
The last test I did was to put a custom built (by me) box dual 1.2G P4's 36G Raid 5 all on 7200RPM spindles and 2GB ram running WIN 2000 Server with all the back office toys vs. an old 133M Pentium, 1.2G 256Meg garbage box I had in the basement running BSDi Unix with squid caching. The garbage box was 8 times faster. Look I'm not out to bash Microsoft but every good carpenter has more than one tool in his box and knows which one to use for which job. Even Microsoft uses Unix for their Web Servers. Bruce Karstedt President Technology Consulting Associates, Ltd. Tel: 847-735-9488 Fax: 847-735-9474 -Original Message- From: Lazor, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 5:34 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; 'Peter'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [PHP] Re: php server on Windows Do you have any benchmarks? -Original Message- fans). Put your site on a *nix box with apache its a heck of a lot faster -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re[2]: [PHP] Re: php server on Windows
On Friday, June 14, 2002 at 11:30:07 PM, Bruce Karstedt wrote: Put your site on a *nix box with apache its a heck of a lot faster and a heck of a lot more stable and a heck of a lot easier to configure and upgrade. It's all very well saying that, but have you got any evidence to back those comments up? With the arrival of Win2k, the win32 platform has become a lot more stable and IMHO is now on a par with the '*nix' platform. As far as how easy they are to configure and upgrade, it depends where you're coming from. But for a complete beginner, IIS beats the competition hands down. The speed issue is a tricky one. In another email you say... On Saturday, June 15, 2002 at 12:08:51 AM, Bruce Karstedt wrote: The last test I did was to put a custom built (by me) box dual 1.2G P4's 36G Raid 5 all on 7200RPM spindles and 2GB ram running WIN 2000 Server with all the back office toys vs. an old 133M Pentium, 1.2G 256Meg garbage box I had in the basement running BSDi Unix with squid caching. The garbage box was 8 times faster. Look I'm not out to bash Microsoft but every good carpenter has more than one tool in his box and knows which one to use for which job. That's the only benchmark you have? Not very conclusive is it. How did you measure the speed? What were you requesting of the server? Was it under load? Were both servers under exactly the same conditions? You can't possibly expect us to accept that as definitive proof that the '*nix' platform is faster. The only benchmark I would accept as definitive proof is one using identical hardware and where each server has been tuned by an Apache/IIS expert as appropriate. Each server must be hit by the same test script using the same network connection which must also be in controlled conditions (i.e. a dedicated connection). Even Microsoft uses Unix for their Web Servers. Actually their main site is served by IIS 5 on Win2k (http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?mode_u=offmode_w=onsite=www.microsoft.com). I know that they do use other platforms for other servers, but as far as I can tell, they are providing minor services compared to the IIS servers. But do correct me if I'm wrong. -- Stuart -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: Re[2]: [PHP] Re: php server on Windows
An opinion was requested, and I gave it. flame I will make a few pointed comments and then I will stop wasting my time and the time of the others on this list. 1) If you do not know why Unix and its various derivatives are a better, meaning more flexible, more secure, faster, and more stable, then you probably don't know much about Unix. 2) I don't consider any Windows platform stable for commercial serving needs. I've had Unix boxes run continuously for over 3 years some as many as 5 and only one time was the crash caused by the operating system. Want to tell me how many times you've seen the blue screen of death on a Windows box. 3) Unix is faster for two main reasons - it has a real file system and it doesn't have all GUI overhead cluttering up CPU/Disk/Bus resources. While the GUI if a great feature on development boxes and workstations its a complete waste of resources on a server. 4) If all you need to do is design web sites Win 2000 (don't use the FAT32 file system) / apache ( not 2.x) and PHP / Pearl / cgi is OK. But if you want to be a successful webmaster and provide your clients / bosses / end users with the best possible service / speed and uptime - learn and use Unix. 5) If you want to learn how to configure the hardware - I'll teach you that too. Just contact me off list. Nuff said. /flame Bruce Karstedt President Technology Consulting Associates, Ltd. Tel: 847-735-9488 Fax: 847-735-9474 -Original Message- From: Stuart Dallas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 6:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re[2]: [PHP] Re: php server on Windows On Friday, June 14, 2002 at 11:30:07 PM, Bruce Karstedt wrote: Put your site on a *nix box with apache its a heck of a lot faster and a heck of a lot more stable and a heck of a lot easier to configure and upgrade. It's all very well saying that, but have you got any evidence to back those comments up? With the arrival of Win2k, the win32 platform has become a lot more stable and IMHO is now on a par with the '*nix' platform. As far as how easy they are to configure and upgrade, it depends where you're coming from. But for a complete beginner, IIS beats the competition hands down. The speed issue is a tricky one. In another email you say... On Saturday, June 15, 2002 at 12:08:51 AM, Bruce Karstedt wrote: The last test I did was to put a custom built (by me) box dual 1.2G P4's 36G Raid 5 all on 7200RPM spindles and 2GB ram running WIN 2000 Server with all the back office toys vs. an old 133M Pentium, 1.2G 256Meg garbage box I had in the basement running BSDi Unix with squid caching. The garbage box was 8 times faster. Look I'm not out to bash Microsoft but every good carpenter has more than one tool in his box and knows which one to use for which job. That's the only benchmark you have? Not very conclusive is it. How did you measure the speed? What were you requesting of the server? Was it under load? Were both servers under exactly the same conditions? You can't possibly expect us to accept that as definitive proof that the '*nix' platform is faster. The only benchmark I would accept as definitive proof is one using identical hardware and where each server has been tuned by an Apache/IIS expert as appropriate. Each server must be hit by the same test script using the same network connection which must also be in controlled conditions (i.e. a dedicated connection). Even Microsoft uses Unix for their Web Servers. Actually their main site is served by IIS 5 on Win2k (http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?mode_u=offmode_w=onsite=www.microsof t.com). I know that they do use other platforms for other servers, but as far as I can tell, they are providing minor services compared to the IIS servers. But do correct me if I'm wrong. -- Stuart -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] Re: php server on Windows
Win98, Apache, PHP 4.0.6 and MySQL with a whole bunch of other apps has been running fine at our school for ages - never crashed yet! (Doesn't get heavy usage though either!) We use the apache extension thingy, not the CGI version of PHP which helps a lot. Phil Schwarzmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... So I'm thinking about setting up a little php/mysql web server here at work and want to use Windows as my platform instead of Linux and have a couple questions... I know that PHP on Windows has some limitations as compared to Linux. What are these limitations? Which version of Windows would be best ? Is this gonna be a real pain in the ass to get PHP MySQL Apache Windows to get along well? Can I use IIS instead of Apache ? Thanks! -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
