0

IIS does not as far as i can remember (I haven’t played with newer version)
Support multiple virtual DOMAINS...

Apache does

Do what I do, Win 2000 and 2003 servers are over rated.

Use a simple windows 2000 pro OS or Windows XP Pro, install apache for windows along with PHP and MySQL.

You'll never regret it, it's by far the simplest and easiest and most manageable setup you can ever use.

Keep in mind I’m not a Microsoft fan, i would choose Linux over windows any day, but the fact remain for people who don’t have the time to learn and manage the Linux OS and are more familiar with windows, do it my way.

0

If your going to run a windows server, do it right, run Windows Server 2003 or dont use a windows server and switch to some vairent of nix :)

0

IIS does not as far as i can remember (I haven’t played with newer version)
Support multiple virtual DOMAINS...

IIS Supports "host headers", which are virtual domains. However, in Windows 2000 Pro and Windows XP Pro, IIS is limited to one domain. In Windows 2000 Server and Windows Server 2003, IIS has an unlimited amount of domains, and supports virtual hosts - I use that everyday.

Eariler, I said IIS performed better than linux-based web servers, and here is the independant research to prove it.

Why does IIS6 perform so well? Well, in Windows Server 2003 the http serving is moved to kernel level, removing all the overhead usually found in a server application running in the userspace.

0

Hello,

I run with Linux servers, unless I need something that has to run on the side with Windoze, such as a database or other application.

I have to ask, if IIS is so damn good, how come it installs to C: (the system volume), and doesn't offer me a choice to go to D: or E: ? Yes, I know in the properties of each site I can go in there and tell them to point the source at another location, but why won't it let me install somewhere else? Reminds me of the days of seeing print queues on the main system partition, and/or Usenet stores on SYS:

On Linux / Apache, I just have to change DocumentRoot and tell it what partition to go look for. 25 seconds in a text editor. Simple, quick, easy.

I have not installed Novell in a while. Might just crack out the disks and see if they got it right.

The C: is strictly for OS system files. I do not want anything else stored there. Yet, I see this damn folder called INETPUB there. I have done the install several times, and have not found a way to change this to D:\INETPUB.

In the end, it is going to come down to the "best tool for the best job." So far, for what I have done, Linux remains my favorite.

Christian

0

Hello,

I run with Linux servers, unless I need something that has to run on the side with Windoze, such as a database or other application.

I have to ask, if IIS is so damn good, how come it installs to C: (the system volume), and doesn't offer me a choice to go to D: or E: ? Yes, I know in the properties of each site I can go in there and tell them to point the source at another location, but why won't it let me install somewhere else? Reminds me of the days of seeing print queues on the main system partition, and/or Usenet stores on SYS:

On Linux / Apache, I just have to change DocumentRoot and tell it what partition to go look for. 25 seconds in a text editor. Simple, quick, easy.

I have not installed Novell in a while. Might just crack out the disks and see if they got it right.

The C: is strictly for OS system files. I do not want anything else stored there. Yet, I see this damn folder called INETPUB there. I have done the install several times, and have not found a way to change this to D:\INETPUB.

In the end, it is going to come down to the "best tool for the best job." So far, for what I have done, Linux remains my favorite.

Christian

I myself lean towards Christan's belief’s.
I any day if i found myself having to use a full server OS like 2000 or 2003, i would lean towards the Linux OS.

Microshit and Windoze with their crapy Lettered drive scheme sucks the bag.
Run a Server OS and find yourself one day having to add more drive space and have fun with those dam drive letters, in Linux it’s as simple as Christian says, a few seconds in an editor and viola you can change the volume to which your Domain’s or any files will be used on, hey you can even span multiple drives as one.

Now that’s flexibility. :mrgreen:

0

You know you dont actually need to use the drive lettering scheme if you want, not to mention it supports A-ZZ (thats alot of drives;))

Plus most of the time these days you raid large drives togeter with Raid1 so windows only sees one peice of hardware either.

Depenending on what its go to do is depandant on waht we run.

We have a few linux boxes for some small stuff :) most of the bigger stuff is windows.

0

From an earlier post on this topic about the uptime of the computers, you have to also consider not only the OS running, but the hardware itself and who's operating it. How many of us here could keep a Windows machine running for a week straight without a problem? Now take the same machine and give it to your mom. Has that uptime drastically decreased?

I haven't used Novell for quite some time, before Windows 2k ever came around. It was quite stable, no questions about that, but I found its security rather simple. I don't know, maybe it was the way our admin had it setup, but getting around things to do whatever you wanted wasn't very difficult. I'm sure they've fixed the holes since then.

I've got nothing against Linux really, except that it has a weak user interface. But I've had little experience with linux and only used gnome and KDE. (i prefer kde) So on this subject, my vote goes to Windows for running a server.

0

For people who know what they're doing, a Linux-based server is a superior solution because it is infinitely more customizable than any Windows server you can set up.

For instance, a friend of mine who owns a network gaming center has asked me to configure a Slackware Linux-based Neverwinter Nights server for him. The Linux server can take 2-3 times as much load as a Win 2K/2003 server on the exact same hardware, and the OS is free to boot.

One of the reasons going for Slackware is that it functions nicely even without GUI tools which tend to get in the way of experienced sysadmins and are total memory hogs. The server I set up is running pure text mode, and I can very quickly configure just about every single aspect of it over the Internet, even over a dialup line, and it still remains incredibly secure as I can easily set which few essential daemons to run (basically just sshd and the neverwinter nights server). This is very much unlike windows where you end up being forced to run a lot of useless (or marginally useful) services in the background.

The one downside is a fairly steep learning curve since CLI (command-line interface) tools tend to require more study to master, but aside from that, most everything else is a plus.

0

Eariler, I said IIS performed better than linux-based web servers, and here is the independant research to prove it.

With the caveat that most of these 'independent' studies are funded by Microsoft.

Why does IIS6 perform so well? Well, in Windows Server 2003 the http serving is moved to kernel level, removing all the overhead usually found in a server application running in the userspace.

A kernel-based http implementation has existed for the Linux kernel for some time now - first as a patch then lately, as part of the stock kernel. It only supports serving static pages though.

A kernel-based http server potentially increases the number of security holes (and they can be severe) as well as potentially lowering robustness, so it's very hard to get right.

If IIS executes ASP.NET scripts in kernel space along with the server itself, this could lead to the same or worse kinds of security horrors that we saw with ActiveX and BHOs (Browser Helper Objects). We all know how Microsoft 'fixed' those swiss cheese aspects of its browser architecture: block all sites by default and ask the surfer to enable them on a case-to-case basis. :cheesy:

0

My gosh, this thrread has gone almost 3 years. I fear it will never end!

I just found this site, and joined. Many of these posts were from 2003 so it was a vast different world then.

ALL agree that MS has had the desktop.

Servers

MS has some good stuff. Generally speaking, they try to make things easier for the user. In this effort they create issues that may and can be exploited at the more system level. Servers, are more system level. They tend to do the same ole same ole day in day out. *nix is great for this. It is lean and efficent.

I have several Linux boxs with over 650plus days uptime! Power failure that the ups could not handle finally took them down. Power restored and they were up in minutes, without issue.

Back in the day of this thread, I had both linux and NT4 servers. In an weather event that took power out for 10 days. The NT4 system didn't make the hour, the Linux server lasted the 10days. Same hardware, same ups types. Reason, Linux cached better and didn't require hd access as much as NT4. Less power required to serve the "static" pages. Yes, the batteries were good and all new. Both units ran ftp, webservers and the Linux had sendmail as well.

It's like keeping up with the Jones with MS being the lead to have the biggest badest and *nix being the small kid on the block sayin "is not".
This thing exist everywhere, Ford or Chevy? Frasher or Ali :) ANY two teamed in combat for the time on the planet....

Simple Answer

IF you are on a budget, want great performance and to learn the insides of your trade, use *nix. A flavor of Debian would be my choice now, with the updates being so "simple". I used RedHat in the 5.2 to 9.0..for the same reason(rpm)

IF you want braggin rights, have an infinate budget and want to live in the hardware upgrade hell. Use MS! Purchase your hardware each 6 months and keep upgrading the system.

LINUX systems, retire hardware when hardware dies or is too old. I have never been blessed to see one over loaded. I have seen MS run at 100%.

Remember VAXs, when if your machine was slow, you simply connected another unit in a modualar way. In moments you were expanded.

We ALL owe MS a great deal. THEY are the driving force for new hardware. The more massive the code gets, the more slower it runs the more it does the more we want it to be faster and do more. The cycle continues and drives the need for more hardware to do it. The HUGE market means the price comes down and starts all over...

THANKS MicroSoft! We've come a long way, and still have a long way to go....

0

I currently have a Gateway Desktop with 120 Gig Hard Disk! I was wondering, what server software should I put on this computer. Windows 2000 Server or a Linux Server. The reason I need a server is for my 2 domains. I currently host DCDJ.net with another server and dcwdservices.com is parked. If you could please help me by telling me which software to install, that would be great. By the way, if you think Linux is better, tell me a place where I can put it on a disk and It will boot from the CD disk drive. Thanks. My email is admin@dcdj.net.

Nick

Hi everyone at daniweb,
Happy valentine's day

I am from India and can not legaly call myself a newbee
to computers though i am not a geek still better than many
Be ready to have a laugh here "I am writing" :lol:

1. I did not know that win serv 2003 is an os LoL
2. I want to set a server on my pc (see, I am not a programmer)
--> i did not knoe IIS a server is there on my xp
wher e is it?
3. I have not seen linux running on any pc
4. The only language i ever learned is BASIC
5. A little bit of php now.
6. Is there a tutorial on set ip server. If it is then send link to me
7. I just found on google something debian? is it a good and secure
OS in comperison to win98 and xp
8. IS there a good cheap reliable secure php host?
No networksolu no godaddy more cheap without advertising

Lowe

0

windows server 2003 is microsofts OS for servers.

You do NOT get IIS on xp home

Debian is good its very stable and secure linux distribution for servers but isnt that easy to configure

0

You do NOT get IIS on XP Home was what i meant to say. Also the IIS on XP is way limited compared to the one on 2003 server. Its suitable for intranet/development but not for webhosting

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.