is the built in web/ftp server in win2k any good?

[flood]

or is something else better (more efficient is what im concerned about)

 

[Dameon]

by far a linux web / ftp server would be more efficient(more users / requests handled w/ less CPU & RAM)

 

[dcdomain]

I tried setting the sucker up... couldn't get it to work, so I'm using G6... ServU was also considered.

 

[flood]

I can get it to work ok
it has to be win2k because of some other apps im running on it.

 

[Nimloth]

The built in server sucks.
Serv-U for me.

 

[Rifter]

IIS is by far more secure than serv-u. I would use IIS over serv-u any day. But IIS 5 is a bit of a hog, i would install NT 4 and use IIS 4 if you wanted to cut back on RAM usage.

 

[Shmorq]

You can also try WarFTP. It's a free FTP server with a lot of configurable options...

 

[Need4Speed]

IIS 5 is the way to go and it is very simple to setup. The key is to have the folder permisions set correctly. Granted it doesnt have some of the fancy things that G6 has (hit meter, ratios, etc) but it is way more secure. I am running g6 right now on my win2k server box, but am making the switch to IIS as we speak. I really dont have the need for all those fancy features anymore...and would rather have the security of NTFS and IIS.

 

[flood]

being a ftp server is a secondary task. my server is primarily a couterstrike server. I just want something that will be efficient in cpu cycles and system resources. options and security isnt much of an issue

 

[Need4Speed]

than use serv-u ftp...its not heavy on the GUI and takes little overhead