Apache vs. IIS

lanjoky

I always have used apache for setting up web servers... but just curious as to what the major differences (other then OS and such) are when comparing Apache and IIS... any information you all can provide (sites etc) would be greatly appreciated

stolzyboy

IMHO, One Word - BLOAT

Sxooter

Portability: Apache runs on ANYTHING out there. IIS runs only on Windows. Winner: Apache

Security: Apache has had something like one remote root explotable bug in the last 3 or 4 years. Patches to fix a major remote root exploit against IIS or one of it's component parts come out about once every three or four months. Winner: Apache

Stability: Apache is one of the most rock solid stable pieces of software I've ever used. IIS, not so much. Winnder: Apache

Performance: Apache 2.x removes any advantage IIS once enjoyed on the Windows platform. You can configure it to be as light weight or as featurefull as you want. Plus, if you're running it on windows and need more performance, you can migrate your apache box to a 64 CPU Sun E10k running BSD, Linux, or Solaris. IIS is a good performer up to a point, but tends to collapse under load if not carefully setup to handle said load. Winner: Apache

Market lockin / sneaky tricks: Apache is open source, and the fixes for security flaws tend to show up in <24 hours from the time of their discovery. IIS is developed by a company with no apparent moral compass, who will gladly throw you and any other customer to the wolves should it provide them with a short term profit. Winner: Microsoft (i.e. more trick, less trustworthy...)

elToro

IMHO, One Word - BLOAT

I've got another word for you: MONEY!

There's no (legal) way to come up with an IIS setup that doesn't cost big bucks.

I'd be shocked if anyone on a PHP message board would recommend IIS over Apache. Apache is the Web server of choice for PHP (and arguable everything else besides some Microsoft-proprietary technologies).

epimeth

gui configuration: IIS has, apache don't... winner: IIS

but who cares?

Sxooter

Actually, I think webmin can do apache configuration in a nice web based system, and there was (maybe still is???) a program called commanche that allowed for easy gui config of apache.

But in my not so humble opinion, if you can't configure apache from a text file, you probably shouldn't be running any internet facing web servers...

Weedpacket

Share of server space (and hence hosting opportunities and experienced support base). Winner: Apache.

Sxooter

Another win for Apache was that they completely changed their server model (multi-process to a multi-process/multi-thred design) and still almost all of the modules written for 1.3 work with little or no rewriting of the core code in them.

I'm not so sure MS has such a stellar reputation for ease of migration from one version to the next.

csn

Apache GUIs:

http://gui.apache.org/

Two more points:

If I had to use .Net, I'd likely go with IIS (as opposed to Mono).
Apache 2: Most of the module support is still considered experimental. The main reason is that the plethora of modules all haven't been tested for thread safety, on all platforms.

Doug_G

IIS -> Native asp support.

csn

Apache ASP (yuck) modules:

http://www.apache-asp.org/
http://wwws.sun.com/software/chilisoft/index.html

Boris_Senker

Hmmm... clicking around a few places to set something up (IIS) vs. single line of code in Apache? I vote for Apache.

Set IIS so only certain IPs can use it? Certainly longer road than a single line of code (Allow From) with Apache! Winner: Apache

Simplicity? Apache BY FAR.

I may vote for GUI related to apps you use many hours a day. After some time typing and searching text strings can be tiresome. But for a web server that you shouldn't have to spend much time with (if at all if configured properly), GUI is just too much.

Reinstall IIS and restore saved settings via ASR (XP) which first yu should perform vs. copying archived httpd.conf and pasting over a newly installed one? Apache wins again!

dalecosp

IIS.

AAMOF, I love spending lots of money, locking up and rebooting weekly, wake-up calls in the midnight hours, scores of phreaks and lamerz who trade hackz to get cmd.exe on my box, code Red, Nimda, paying for vendor support, upgrading weekly... etc. etc.

I'm gonna go right now and move all my domains to it.

Yah, right, when pigs code PHP ... Apache all the way... and none of this Penguin stuff either, BSD, heh

planetsim

Is it just me, or was this thread answered before it was even started.

lanjoky

Guys just to clarify here ... 1. I am not saying that IIS is better then apache ... actually I think the opposite ... 2. the reason I brought this question up is because there are certain open source scripts that in there requirements state they need IIS and some that state they Need apache .... I wanted to know what the functional differences were between the two so that I could understand why these scripts required such ....

Thanks

piersk

I think IIS is far easier to set up.

Also, if you buy XP Pro (which doesn't cost much if you get it with a PC), this comes with IIS.

Fair enough if you're running a webserver on your own computer, then apache would be better since it takes up less RAM/disc space/processing power, but if you have IIS on a nice dual pentium machine with ample memory (256M😎 (not that I'm bragging or anything😃 ) and its pretty much the only thing you are running then it runs very sweetly.

I've had my w2k machine (the one with the specs quoted above and with IIS on it, natch) running for about 4 weeks non-stop and I've had no probs whatsoever.

Doug_G

I like IIS myself, having used it for years and seen it evolve from pretty bad (IIS3) to good (IIS4) to very good (IIS5). I understand there have been a number of improvements in IIS6 in Windows 2003.

I have a question for Apache guru's, is it easy to set up Apache so each website on the server runs in a different user context?

stolzyboy

I believe IIS is easier to setup, but to manage is another thing.

Would you rather have a quick install and the hell of a time maintaining the dumb thing (that needs patches all the time), or a little bit harder to install, and much easier to maintain, with minimal patches

and nowadays, apache isn't really that hard to install...

and if you are running PHP with it, PHP is much more stable on Apache than IIS, and much faster/efficient

csn

Originally posted by Doug G
I have a question for Apache guru's, is it easy to set up Apache so each website on the server runs in a different user context?

Absolutely - see the User directive:

http://httpd.apache.org/docs/mod/core.html#user

Sxooter

If I was gonna run a native threaded web server on Windows I'd pick Xitami over both Apache or IIS for ease of use, small footprint, speed, everything. I had to switch to apache because it was too fast for the router I was testing it on back in the day. Seriously.