Maybe we're talking about different versions of Mac OS X Server. I'm using Jaguar and it handles multihoming and multiple SSL certificates quite nicely. I am somewhat of a novice at both and I found the process to be simple and straight forward. As for restarting the server, I simply make all my changes at one time, requiring only a single restart.
The only real hassle I have run into on a regular basis is setting up custom logs. However, it seems there would be a way to write a script to make changes to the conf file for me, but then again, I am still relatively new to this. As far as performance, I relate to your Ferrari/Lamborghini analogy, but for Witango and not just Apache. W5 seems so much more powerful than T2K, I don't know that I could even tell the difference between platform versions, especially in the real world. This discussion does make me curious to know about any production sites that are pushing the envelope with Witango in terms of the kind of traffic that we are talking about. I would love to know about these sites, and if possible, know what kind of real-world numbers Witango is handling. This would seem to help in overcoming objections from clients not familiar with the platform. Chris > The apple gui is a great start but leaves a lot behind. Because it only > handles the the basics in the gui, you still have to hit the text > editor. And the apache issue of restarting the whole webserver to > update changes is always an issue, and the most irratating. Also, when > you have to deal with multihoming and multiple secure certificates from > different vendors, you will find IIS completely at home with this level > of complexity, and you will have to delve deep with the text editor, > and archaic ssl command line utilities on apache. I am a programmer, > and proficient in most languages, and am no novice to the apache > syntax, or the command utilities. But my time is valuable to me, so I > chose IIS. If the security issue was not a part of the equation, and > anyone put them side by side in daily use of complex web setups, I am > sure at 4 out 5 dentist would agree. > > Robert. > > On Wednesday, June 4, 2003, at 11:38 AM, Chris Millet wrote: > >> While it is true that IIS does have an easier administration >> interface... >> >> Are you comparing IIS Admin tools to Apache as a stand alone or to Mac >> OS X Server which ships with Xserve? >> >> I have also been a long-time WebSTAR guy, and I find administering >> Apache only slightly more difficult than WebSTAR � a small price for >> the additional power and flexibility. Additionally, Mac OS X Server on >> Xserve gives you so many more tools than WebSTAR including what I have >> read to be unprecedented hardware/software integration. I don�t know >> much about the IIS interface, but the server admin tools seem to be >> fairly robust, especially for multiple servers. Plus, like everything >> else Apple does, they are extremely intuitive, which, coming from a >> graphic background, is important to me. Here�s a like to the GUI if >> anyone�s interested. http://www.apple.com/xserve/management.html >> >> Chris >> >> >> Robert, while your post provides some good information, I looked at it >> and questioned whether there was a true 'apples' and 'apples' >> comparison. While it is true that IIS does have an easier >> administration interface, it comes at what I feel is a very heavy >> cost. Yes WebSTAR is/was a wonderful server mainly because of its >> ease-of-use but I believe that prior to your PrimeBase days you were a >> Butler user. I don't think that PrimeBase or any other SQL engine has >> as easy-to-use interface as Butler did. You made some concessions when >> you selected PrimeBase as your current engine. There's no preventing >> those that select Apache from making similar concessions. >> >> What I am trying to say is let's find a closer 'apples' to 'apples' >> comparison. Apache/Witango/database on Windows vs. >> Apache/Witango/database on OS X. One other thing that I wondered about >> when I was reading your post is whether the problem lies with the >> Apache plug-in vs. the IIS plug-in. I'm not knowledgeable enough to >> guess whether there is that possibility but my lack of knowledge would >> make me raise the question for those that can to answer. >> >> I want to steer this back towards the simpler comparison but I will >> comment on what you said about costs (and Ben's comment). >> >> Ben makes a very good point. Yes 'hardware' is much cheaper on the >> Windows side but we must factor the total cost of >> ownership/maintenance into the equation. How much does the Win2k or >> Win2003 server licence cost? How much time/money does it cost to keep >> up-to-date with the service patches and make sure that they are >> properly applied? Perhaps, because you are doing these yourself, you >> don't consider that time to have a cost. One very important lesson I >> received from a recent self-employment course I took was to factor in >> what it would cost to have someone else do the work if you were unable >> to do it. That will give a truer value on what your operating costs >> are. >> >> Hope this helps, >> >> Steve Smith >> >> Oakbridge Information Solutions >> Office: (519) 624-4388 >> GTA: ���(416) 606-3885 >> Fax: ���(519) 624-3353 >> Cell: ��(416) 606-3885 >> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Web: ���http://www.oakbridge.ca <http://www.oakbridge.ca/> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ben Johansen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: June 4, 2003 12:29 PM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: RE: Witango-Talk: Mac OSX performance >> >> Great info, >> >> � >> >> What I want is you supplier on the $700 server. Does this come with >> the Win2k server license? >> >> Ben Johansen - http://www.pcforge.com >> Authorized Witango Reseller http://www.pcforge.com/WitangoGoodies.htm >> Authorized MDaemon Mail Server Reseller >> http://www.pcforge.com/AltN.htm >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Robert Garcia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 7:38 AM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Re: Witango-Talk: Mac OSX performance >> >> � >> >> I have done a lot of research on this. I am a huge Mac enthusiast, and >> I wanted to go with OS X, and worked very heavily with Andre(stone >> steps) and Witango when they were developing the v5 OS X version. >> >> There were a lot of bugs in the first OS X version, it would crash >> under any load, and as they were able to fix those issues, and make >> the server more reliable, I noticed the server slowly decreased in >> performance. When 054 came out, I did some benchtesting with Mac and >> Windows versions going head to head, with the same code, hitting the >> same database. My database screams, so I know that is not any >> bottleneck. >> >> I first did a bunch of tests to determine the optimum configuration >> for each platform, and found that the Windows Witango server needs to >> stay at 10 threads, and the OS X version can vary between 10-20, but >> no more than 20. >> >> It is also very important to know that the cache was in complete use >> on both test systems. It has been my experience that the cache in the >> Witango Server is the single biggest performance booster. Use cache, >> and add memory to your system so that you use it alot. Also, when >> cache is off, your server will be less reliable, especially on OS X. I >> can cause crashes with the cache off, that I cannot seem to cause with >> the cache on (at least in 054). >> >> The windows system was a AMD XP 2100 Processor (1.7ghz) with 512 megs >> of ram running 2000 server and IIS 5. The mac system running on a G4 >> dual 1ghz with OS X Server 10.2. The database was on a G4 dual 1ghz, >> using primebase. I find these systems to be good for comparison, >> especially since Witango only uses one processor on the mac. >> >> I used apache bench to hit the servers, it allows a set number of >> hits, and simulates concurrent users. >> >> I first tested the performance of IIS 5 on the Windows sys, vs Apache >> 1.3.27 on the Mac. Apache edged out IIS by about 25%. >> >> I then tested the Witango performance. I tested the servers repeatedly >> simulating multiple users. I tested the performance on relatively >> simple tml files, with no db access, and I also tested with a image >> library taf that pulles info and thumbnails from the db. I found the >> Windows server to usaually be around 80% faster. It was a big >> difference. I have a long text document of my results, although I have >> not thoroughly notated it, and is a little cryptic. I am attaching it, >> since it is small. >> >> My conclusions and observations: Basically, use windows to serve. My >> experience is that Windows is faster and more reliable as a server >> platform for Witango. Also, even if all tests were equal, I think I >> would still choose windows for the following reasons: >> >> 1. As an administrator of multiple servers, witango, mail, database, >> etc, Windows 2000 is much easier to administrate and administrate >> remotely. Especially with the free Remote Desktop Connection for OS X. >> 2. Hardware is dirt cheap on Windows. You spend a ton on XServe. So >> what if the XServe has better hardware redundancy and should be more >> reliable. I can set up two load balanced Windows servers for about >> $700 each, which gives me complete redundancy, which is even more >> reliable. >> 3. I am an old Webstar guy, and apache is a pain in the ass. I am >> completely proficient in it, and deployed with it for months. I hate >> the fact that you have to restart the server to accept a change. I >> hate that if you screw up in syntax, you have almost no help finding >> the problem, so you have to make small changes restart and repeat to >> be safe. Maybe you type perfectly, I don't. IIS 5 is so easy and >> flexible, and Webstar like. It is even better than webstar. It is >> designed to make changes on the fly. It is designed to serve from >> network shares. I love it. I check security patches once a week, and >> have never had a security issue. >> >> IMHO, OS X still has a way to go to be a mature server platform. Phil >> might have more to say about that. I do know that Witango had to go >> through a lot of extra hoops to work on OS X, and that may be why >> performance lacks. >> >> Also, some may argue that Apache is faster, and should be used. That >> is like comparing the speed of a Ferrari and a Lamborghini, and you >> live in Southern California. You can never get the sucker up to 200 >> mph anyway, so go with the one that is funner to drive. That is how it >> is with Apache and IIS. They are both much faster than they need to >> be. They can fill up a T1 on a pentium 90. The bottleneck is Witango, >> and your database, not the webserver, unless you use some server that >> I don't know of that really tanks. >> >> Hope this helps. I spent many, many hours on this question. >> >> Robert. >> _______________________________________________________________________ >> _ >> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf >> >> >> _______________________________________________________________________ >> _ >> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf >> >> >> ________________________________________________________________________ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Go to http://www.witango.com/maillist.taf
