Web servers... Which OS to use?

[skyking]

It's all about how many GBs of traffic and web space in MBs, any suggestions???

Not at all. If you have serious content, it is about reliability, how big a connection or connections they have, redundancy, track record on customer service. Storage and bandwidth is useless if it does not work up to your expectations.

 

[Monoman]

I use 1 and 1 free for 3 years they seem fairly good, newer to the US but have been around for a while in the UK region if I am not mistaken.. there is still the free offer and it's specs: Mysql, 50emails, 500megs, 5g/months b/w, umm and all those nice features. Shell prompt, ftp server.

good luck and have fun. With the RH9 install, pluase ensure you have all ports closed but the ones you use on that server.. it will be open to attacks.

and if you run cable or such behind your route, I reccomend running the server on DMZ

Mitch

 

[alien886]

Well, I went here: http://www.findmyhosting.com/
and... I found the best deal (with a high "Rating Score")...

TotalChoice (USA)
website: http://www.totalchoicehosting.com/
Silver Plan
Disk Storage: 500 MB
Data Transfer: 10GB
and Unlimited E-mail accounts

for only $5.00 a month! CAN YOU FIND ANTHING BETTER???

 

[Maus]

I know you've already went with linux, but Apache does a fine job for me on Windows 2000 (never tried it on XP.) It was a lot easier to set up than IIS.

 

[alien886]

BTW... please explain what "shared hosting" is...

 

[Crusty]

you might wanna send RossMAN a PM. He is the one person on these boards that will set you straight about Web Hosting.

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: MCrusty
you might wanna send RossMAN a PM. He is the one person on these boards that will set you straight about Web Hosting.

Or ViperGTS, I know he does webhost reselling.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: spyordie007

So if you want to get it "right" then it's not so "easy" then isn't it?
Seems to me that there is realy no shortcut to good security so the level of expertise needed to get everything secure in windows, isn't any less then it takes to set up a decent and secure server in Linux.

Well I suppose IIS 6 (Windows 2003 Server) could be considered both easy and secure "out of the box"; with anything before IIS 6 however it was easy to setup but required a bit of work to secure properly (but than again it was nothing harder than partitioning in OpenBSD with more than one OS, and IISLockDown made it much easier). This is of course the reason that code red and nimda were as prodominent as they were, too many web server admins didnt take the time to lock the service down.

-Spy

Personally, I think easy and servers don't mix.
Don't get me wrong, I like things that are simple to configure(such as apache), but I think wizards, etc are a Very Bad Thing when it comes to servers, because it teaches server admins alot of bad habits.
Anything that forces the admin to get his hands dirty to understand, and then lets him do things in an easy way with his newly gained knowledge is the Right Thing IMO.

 

[spyordie007]

I couldnt agree more sunner, that's why good deployment tools are what I generally think about when I think "easy" and not that a service is easy to install.

 

[stephbu]

The irony is that the IIS core has been pretty secure since 5.0, just the lame ISAPI filters that people wrote weren't. e.g. Index Server

The last year or two have improved those though.