posw2ksocks
04-10-2003, 10:43 PM
I was wondering if anyone is opting for this route with their commercial website. Do you lose functionality by porting it to windows or is it just as stable and fast as apache on linux. Thanks!
Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : Apache 2.0 on windows 2k
Choozo
04-11-2003, 04:41 AM
It's just as fast, stable, and secure as the platform it runs on.
chrism01
04-11-2003, 07:10 AM
Nicely put ;)
posw2ksocks
04-11-2003, 01:11 PM
Thanks for your input. By having apache/windows, my server seems much faster than when I had apache/linux. My system is very stable and easy to use, plus I get the compatibility of most of the software out on the market.
BoomerADF
04-15-2003, 09:36 PM
First off in my opinion I would stay away from 2.0 still. Also I dont see how its faster in Windows unless you mucked up the Linux install.
Unless you want to use ASP I would steer clear of Windows as a webserver.
Unless you want to use ASP I would steer clear of Windows as a webserver.
posw2ksocks
04-16-2003, 12:18 AM
Why yes, I must've mucked up the apache/linux install. Why are those guys at apache.org even bothering porting apache to windows when there's people like you who know it all? All I know is, when I tested the response times with my apache/linux-vs-apache/windows, the apache/linux setup responded extremely slow to queries over the net. I even did an upload/download speed test through speakeasy with lousy results from the apache/linux cofiguration. But again, I must've done something wrong because there's no way windows can work well with apache right?
theN
04-16-2003, 02:46 AM
Originally posted by posw2ksocks
Why yes, I must've mucked up the apache/linux install. Why are those guys at apache.org even bothering porting apache to windows when there's people like you who know it all? All I know is, when I tested the response times with my apache/linux-vs-apache/windows, the apache/linux setup responded extremely slow to queries over the net. I even did an upload/download speed test through speakeasy with lousy results from the apache/linux cofiguration. But again, I must've done something wrong because there's no way windows can work well with apache right? The previous respondent was only pointing out a well known fact - that the Apache movement was founded on the Unix platform originally, hence is more used and tested on that platform. I'm quite sure that he wasn't casting any aspersions on your competency.
As another respondent indicated, don't use 2.xx versions for public websites for the time being. They are not the most stable or tested; AFAIK Apache1.36 is still the most deployed webserver.
Being a recent migrant to Linux (RH8), IMHO Apache seems faster on Linux than on Win32 (I've used it on both W2K and Win'98). As usual its YMMV :).
regards
theN
Why yes, I must've mucked up the apache/linux install. Why are those guys at apache.org even bothering porting apache to windows when there's people like you who know it all? All I know is, when I tested the response times with my apache/linux-vs-apache/windows, the apache/linux setup responded extremely slow to queries over the net. I even did an upload/download speed test through speakeasy with lousy results from the apache/linux cofiguration. But again, I must've done something wrong because there's no way windows can work well with apache right? The previous respondent was only pointing out a well known fact - that the Apache movement was founded on the Unix platform originally, hence is more used and tested on that platform. I'm quite sure that he wasn't casting any aspersions on your competency.
As another respondent indicated, don't use 2.xx versions for public websites for the time being. They are not the most stable or tested; AFAIK Apache1.36 is still the most deployed webserver.
Being a recent migrant to Linux (RH8), IMHO Apache seems faster on Linux than on Win32 (I've used it on both W2K and Win'98). As usual its YMMV :).
regards
theN
chrism01
04-16-2003, 06:24 AM
As above..
Also, if you're only running a dedicated webserver, Linux's modular design enables you to really strip a system down to the bare minimum services.
MSWIN is a more integrated design; you may be forced to install some stuff you don't really need.
Given the total redesign of the internals, performance should be more nearly equal on the same HW.
Of course, there are many ways to tune a system, both HW and SW, under either OS.
YMMV
Also, if you're only running a dedicated webserver, Linux's modular design enables you to really strip a system down to the bare minimum services.
MSWIN is a more integrated design; you may be forced to install some stuff you don't really need.
Given the total redesign of the internals, performance should be more nearly equal on the same HW.
Of course, there are many ways to tune a system, both HW and SW, under either OS.
YMMV
justlinux.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright Internet.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.