IIS vs. Apache

[BlahBlahYouToo]

been reading up on the two and they seem to be on par with each other.
the major advantage is that apache/unix is free, but if you're already running Windows server, IIS is included.

so which do you use?

 

[Bateluer]

Stop me if I'm wrong on this, but unless you have a server version of Windows, IIS limits the number of incoming connections? Apache has no such restrictions an can run under XP Home/Pro, and any version of Vista, if you choose to run it under windows.

 

[Nothinman]

Yes, IIS on non-Server versions of Windows is limited to 10 concurrent connections.

Personally I prefer Apache partially because I run Linux for everything possible so IIS isn't even an option. But the few times I've had to mess with IIS I hated it. Apache's config files are simpler to work with and the log entries are more logical and usually tell you exactly what's wrong. The initial learning curve's a bit higher but overall it's a lot better to work with IMO.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

what's wrong with IIS?
it's pretty robust. the only tricky parts i ever ran into were authentication and app pools, but those were resolved pretty easily.

which version? 6.0 is much improved over 5.0.

 

[Nothinman]

IIS works fine for lots of people so I'm sure it has it's place, but coming from a Linux background it's just really annoying to deal with. I prefer text config files instead of GUI config tools. And I know that IIS6 either has or can import/export from a config file but IIRC it's XML which I hate dealing with also. It's probably just lack of experience with IIS but I always have a much more difficult problem figuring out what's wrong from it's error logs but with Apache it's usually pretty obvious what's wrong or at least within which module the problem exists.

It's sort of like comparing Linux to Windows, sure they can both be used to do virtually all of the same things but the systems are so logically different that something that makes perfect sense in one seems really f'd up in the other.

 

[George P Burdell]

The only time I ever used IIS was when my company ran all its infrastructure off Microsoft software (IIS/MSSQL/ASP.NET/et al). For all other projects, I've stuck to Apache, which can perform very well when tweaked appropriately. On occasion, I've used lighttpd when I needed to.

 

[Thor86]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
IIS works fine for lots of people so I'm sure it has it's place, but coming from a Linux background it's just really annoying to deal with. I prefer text config files instead of GUI config tools. And I know that IIS6 either has or can import/export from a config file but IIRC it's XML which I hate dealing with also. It's probably just lack of experience with IIS but I always have a much more difficult problem figuring out what's wrong from it's error logs but with Apache it's usually pretty obvious what's wrong or at least within which module the problem exists.

It's sort of like comparing Linux to Windows, sure they can both be used to do virtually all of the same things but the systems are so logically different that something that makes perfect sense in one seems really f'd up in the other.

Umm, IIS uses xml files for configuration too. Just probably not as intuitive as Apache config files, but then again Linux isn't too intuitive for me anyways.

 

[RebateMonger]

I've only used Apache a bit, and that was years ago. Almost every web site I do, uses IIS. Mostly because I only work on Windows Servers.

I don't find IIS configuration very intuitive. Microsoft claims that the NEW VERSION (IIS 7) is easier to configure and to set up authentication. Also, there's a "core" version of IIS that strips out things that not everybody needs, to compete better with Apache. PHP support is also integrated into IIS 7, to make it a bit easier to use PHP in IIS.

But, of course, EVERYBODY claims that their new software is much better than their old software.

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: Thor86

Originally posted by: Nothinman
IIS works fine for lots of people so I'm sure it has it's place, but coming from a Linux background it's just really annoying to deal with. I prefer text config files instead of GUI config tools. And I know that IIS6 either has or can import/export from a config file but IIRC it's XML which I hate dealing with also. It's probably just lack of experience with IIS but I always have a much more difficult problem figuring out what's wrong from it's error logs but with Apache it's usually pretty obvious what's wrong or at least within which module the problem exists.

It's sort of like comparing Linux to Windows, sure they can both be used to do virtually all of the same things but the systems are so logically different that something that makes perfect sense in one seems really f'd up in the other.

Umm, IIS uses xml files for configuration too.

 

[sourceninja]

I use lighttpd for most projects now, apache for my job.

 

[Nothinman]

Umm, IIS uses xml files for configuration too. Just probably not as intuitive as Apache config files, but then again Linux isn't too intuitive for me anyways.

I mention that in my post, it only applies to IIS6 and I hate XML. Apache's config file format is much, much easier to work with.

 

[Bateluer]

IIS, all versions, just got slammed with a new vulnerability that allows malicious scripts to install Trojans to a user's PC.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2182576&enterthread=y

Edited for spelling

 

[stash]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
IIS, all versions, just get slammed with a new vulnerability that allows malicious scripts to install trojans to a user's PC.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2182576&enterthread=y

Uh no.

1. It's a SQL injection attack, not an IIS vuln. It could easily be adapted to work on MySQL instead of just MS SQL.
2. The number of websites affected is way off. The 500,000 number is counting pages for some reason, not unique sites.

 

[Kakumba]

apache is easier, and lets face it, there is a reason it is generally referred to as the most popular web server (however, I would love to see some hard, independently verified numbers one way or the other). I find it to be the best fit for my needs.

 

[hans007]

i have used both in the past and i'd have to say i acutally like using GUIs to setup things . I used IIS on 2003 server and the built in one on xp pro. and i've used apache.

as much as config files are easier to say save off, they are definitely not easier to find what you want to change, unless you are really really familiar. i mean you cant really say the apache configuration format is say intuitive at all, at least with IIS you can more or less stumble your way through once you find the gui.

so apache is nice sicne its free and probably faster too , but i hardly think its easier to install. i mean apache is prboably better at most actual performance based things than IIS but people use IIS even if they have to pay for it chiefly because its easier to install and configure for most people

 

[Nothinman]

i have used both in the past and i'd have to say i acutally like using GUIs to setup things

If you're just getting started with the product and don't want to spend the time to really learn it then yea, they can be pretty convenient. But as soon as you start really using it config files make a lot more sense. It's a huge time saver to be able to copy/paste a VirtualHost section then search/replace with the new name to setup a new virtual host. Or to be able to break up the config into separate files and just include them from the main file, this way the settings for that particular piece are grouped together and enabling/disabling them is as simple as changing one line in the main config file. And since a config file is just a normal file there's nothing special to backup, restore, duplicate to a new host, etc the config.

i mean you cant really say the apache configuration format is say intuitive at all, at least with IIS you can more or less stumble your way through once you find the gui.

But that all falls apart as soon as you run into a problem that you can't fix by stumbling around. As soon as you have to read some error logs and consult Google you're in territory better served by Apache and a config file with directives that are actually well documented on the Apache site.

so apache is nice sicne its free and probably faster too , but i hardly think its easier to install.

Running 'aptitude install apache2' is difficult?

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: Kakumba
apache is easier, and lets face it, there is a reason it is generally referred to as the most popular web server (however, I would love to see some hard, independently verified numbers one way or the other). I find it to be the best fit for my needs.

IIS rules in the business world (50:15).
apache has the lead in internet sites (50:30).

http://www.search-this.com/200...pache-who-serves-more/

 

[Nothinman]

IIS rules in the business world (50:15).

Which isn't really surprising, software choices by most businesses aren't usually driven by technological reasons.

 

[Markbnj]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

IIS rules in the business world (50:15).

Which isn't really surprising, software choices by most businesses aren't usually driven by technological reasons.

That's for sure. Fwiw I run both and I find Apache as easy to use as IIS. I don't stretch either of them out, so I can't comment on how they do under stress, but I would expect either to perform very well when properly configured.

 

[Thor86]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

IIS rules in the business world (50:15).

Which isn't really surprising, software choices by most businesses aren't usually driven by technological reasons.

And what specific "technological reasons" would a company/person choose Apache for?

 

[Scarpozzi]

IIS doesn't run on Netware or Linux....so I'll have to say Apache.

 

[Kakumba]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: Kakumba
apache is easier, and lets face it, there is a reason it is generally referred to as the most popular web server (however, I would love to see some hard, independently verified numbers one way or the other). I find it to be the best fit for my needs.

IIS rules in the business world (50:15).
apache has the lead in internet sites (50:30).

http://www.search-this.com/200...pache-who-serves-more/

Thanks. Thats still not exactly a breakdown of the whole internet, but I guess its about as good as is feasible.

 

[Nothinman]

And what specific "technological reasons" would a company/person choose Apache for?

One huge one is the fact that IIS is intimiately tied to Windows while Apache runs on everything. Hell you can't even install a different version of IIS on Windows if you like, if you install Win2K3 you're stuck with IIS6 no matter what. Another big one is all of the available modules for Apache.

IIS isn't bad software, well anymore anyway, and there are technical reasons to choose it over Apache as well. Obviously a lot of people like the tight integration with .Net and Windows but there are arguments against it as well.

 

[Scarpozzi]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

And what specific "technological reasons" would a company/person choose Apache for?

One huge one is the fact that IIS is intimiately tied to Windows while Apache runs on everything. Hell you can't even install a different version of IIS on Windows if you like, if you install Win2K3 you're stuck with IIS6 no matter what. Another big one is all of the available modules for Apache.

IIS isn't bad software, well anymore anyway, and there are technical reasons to choose it over Apache as well. Obviously a lot of people like the tight integration with .Net and Windows but there are arguments against it as well.

Apache does run on Windows, but anyone who's done it is likely to tell you to stick with Linux. I've not personally had too many problems with it, but I've never had to support it for a production system either.