Hardware Analysis Community Forums http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/3142/ 2008-11-20T22:34:12-05:00 http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/3142/ http://media.hardwareanalysis.com/halogo.gif text/html 2002-10-19T22:42:58-05:00 Chris Faulkner http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/3142/#15089 When an IIS server is hitting 100% CPU load, things get a bit slow... even in the static content arena. Apache servers running in Linux or Unix counterparts, can run much more effciently greater than 100% cpu load.<br /> text/html 2002-10-19T15:40:39-05:00 Peh Lee http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/3142/#15076 Other than your good point on the bloatedness of OS - MS Windows being really bloated - and in turn steals precious processor resources, there's another point that warrants everyone's attention:<br /> <br /> Reliability.<br /> <br /> Although I have NO DOUBT that a MSWindow-based webserver can run for weeks without having to be rebooted, if it has been really carefully set-up. But, a similarly carefully set-up Linux- (or Solaris-, or *BSD-) based webserver can run much, MUCH longer.<br /> <br /> The reason is _really_ simple, the Unices platform is just much more reliable than the MSWindows platform.<br /> <br /> You do not have to take my word for it. You can ask anyone who have tried BOTH platform before, that is, anyone who can be impartial. text/html 2002-10-19T15:36:46-05:00 Peh Lee http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/3142/#15075 Other than your good point on the bloatedness of OS - MS Windows being really bloated - and in turn steals precious processor resources, there's another point that warrants everyone's attention:<br /> <br /> Reliability.<br /> <br /> Although I have NO DOUBT that a MSWindow-based webserver can run for weeks without having to be rebooted, if it has been really carefully set-up. But, a similarly carefully set-up Linux- (or Solaris-, or *BSD-) based webserver can run much, MUCH longer.<br /> <br /> The reason is _really_ simple, the Unices platform is just much more reliable than the MSWindows platform.<br /> <br /> You do not have to take my word for it. You can ask anyone who have tried BOTH platform before, that is, anyone who can be impartial. text/html 2002-10-18T11:51:37-05:00 Sander Sassen http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/3142/#15023 Hi David,<br /> <br /> The problem with running a Microsoft based server is the fact that the size of the OS bogs down the performance of the whole server. With Linux a working web server kernel fits in just a few KBs and a database backend needs no more than a few MBs. The GUI and other services that are running on, for example, a Windows 2000 Pro, web server will consume valueable processor time and resources and will require you to use a more powerful server then if you'd used Linux.<br /> <br /> I'm not directly comparing the performance of IIS or .NET to Apache, but looking at it from a system requirements point of view. And from that perspective the Microsoft solution does need a bigger server to be able to offer the same level of performance.<br /> <br /> Kind regards,<br /> text/html 2002-10-18T08:12:58-05:00 David Fartouk http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/3142/#0 Hi <br /> I didn't want to raise the academic question - &quot;Linux or Microsoft&quot; but someone has to make this argument more realistic. <br /> First - the performance advantage of Linux is not quiet obvious, there are different advantages to each system. IIS is currently much faster then Apache in serving Static content and Images while Apache can support higher amount of concurrent users. <br /> I agree that using Linux as web server is a good choice but I will probably aim it to UNIX environment. <br /> From my large experience in this area I can say that usually both Apache and IIS, when configured correctly, will be up and running for a long time (years).<br /> For summary, I agree with your choice.<br /> <br />