![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Apache Server vs. IIS
- Thread starter rsnellma
- Start date
The biggest reason, IMO, should be what you want to do with it.
For example, PHP/Perl works more easily with Apache than IIS. ASP / .NET works more easily with IIS than Apache. Sure, you can jury-rig just about anything, but if you're starting from scratch, why create trouble?
For home use, Apache won't have the 10-connection limit of IIS on a non-server OS. Of course, for home use, that likely doesn't matter.
For the Windows platform, comparatively few attacks are made on Apache relative to IIS. That's not a security plan per se, but you've got less chance of waking up to a box that's spreading the Next Great Worm.
I believe IIS now defaults to a relatively secure configuration, though that was an issue in the past. MS' IIS Lockdown Tool is also an excellent aid in this regard. Apache starts with comparatively few modules enabled. Either way, tightening is recommended.
IIS has a GUI, Apache does not. Depending on who you ask, this is an advantage for either. I do not find either to be particularly arcane or obscure.
For example, PHP/Perl works more easily with Apache than IIS. ASP / .NET works more easily with IIS than Apache. Sure, you can jury-rig just about anything, but if you're starting from scratch, why create trouble?
For home use, Apache won't have the 10-connection limit of IIS on a non-server OS. Of course, for home use, that likely doesn't matter.
For the Windows platform, comparatively few attacks are made on Apache relative to IIS. That's not a security plan per se, but you've got less chance of waking up to a box that's spreading the Next Great Worm.
I believe IIS now defaults to a relatively secure configuration, though that was an issue in the past. MS' IIS Lockdown Tool is also an excellent aid in this regard. Apache starts with comparatively few modules enabled. Either way, tightening is recommended.
IIS has a GUI, Apache does not. Depending on who you ask, this is an advantage for either. I do not find either to be particularly arcane or obscure.
$
Moolah
Dinero
El Cashola
Sanity (Oops how did that slip in there. I mean there are never any worms that hit IE)
Although if you are looking for something with an ASP like syntax you might look into Apache Jakarta (.jsp) or the Perl version (.php)
Apache
- free
- runs an any platform
- unlimited connection limit
- configure it via text file
- fast
- secure
- pain in the ass to get it to run ASP/ASP.NET
- maintaining log files can be a pain
IIS
- windows only
- unlimited connections require Server license (expensive!!
)
- supports ASP/ASP.NET out of the box
- pretty secure (IIS6)
- configure via GUI tool
- IIS6 can be daunting to configure especially if you're used to older versions
- log files are easily configured and automated.
both can be easily configured to support PHP
personally, i use IIS6 simply because i write scripts in ASP/ASP.NET and PHP, and it easily supports all of those. Also, IIS6 is much, much improved over previous versions. You simply don't hear much about IIS6 exploits.
Apache is sweet though, i kind of prefer the text file config myself, though admittedly i hated it at first. In many ways it's actually easier to tinker with than the GUI interface of IIS. You are definately more in charge with Apache.
- free
- runs an any platform
- unlimited connection limit
- configure it via text file
- fast
- secure
- pain in the ass to get it to run ASP/ASP.NET
- maintaining log files can be a pain
IIS
- windows only
- unlimited connections require Server license (expensive!!
)- supports ASP/ASP.NET out of the box
- pretty secure (IIS6)
- configure via GUI tool
- IIS6 can be daunting to configure especially if you're used to older versions
- log files are easily configured and automated.
both can be easily configured to support PHP
personally, i use IIS6 simply because i write scripts in ASP/ASP.NET and PHP, and it easily supports all of those. Also, IIS6 is much, much improved over previous versions. You simply don't hear much about IIS6 exploits.
Apache is sweet though, i kind of prefer the text file config myself, though admittedly i hated it at first. In many ways it's actually easier to tinker with than the GUI interface of IIS. You are definately more in charge with Apache.
Well, first thank you for your responses, but now you have confused me. It sounds like they are both good. Although, let me get this right, if I am running Windows XP Pro w/ IIS then only 10 people will be able to surf my site at one time? So, I am either looking at buying Windows 2003 Server or using Apache for windows on my XP Pro machine. I guess I am looking for a fast and secure webserver option. Plus, I will want to implement something like this
http://www.faithcommunitychurch.com/calendar/index.html
later on after my site is up and running and the revisions begin. If anyone can help further, please do. All suggestions are welcomed. Thanks again.
Bob2001
http://www.faithcommunitychurch.com/calendar/index.html
later on after my site is up and running and the revisions begin. If anyone can help further, please do. All suggestions are welcomed. Thanks again.
Bob2001
one would hope that the two leading webservers would bersnellma said:
Yes.
What you're more likely looking for is a professional hosting service, from the sound of it. If you're talking church calendar, you probably don't want to deal with having and maintaining a webserver and an appropriate pipe. In that case, you can be certain that an IIS host will have server-class OSes running.
Ok, so to do a calendar like that in the future I should be focused on using IIS instead of Apache. Are you saying something like that would be automated and less admin intervention? I will want to have an email server too. What are alternatives for MS email services, besides Exchange or whatever MS offers these days? If I use IIS for web services, can I use a different foundation for email services, webmail, etc, like ClarkConnect Server? Thanks again in advance.
Bob2001
Bob2001
rsnellma said:
for that calender, it doesn't really matter much which web server you choose. the calendar is coded in a scripting language (like ASP, ASP.NET or PHP). in that sense your choice of scripting language would be influenced by the web server you are using, For example, if you chose to go with ASP or .NET then IIS would be the better choice. If you chose PHP (which i recomment), then either Apache or IIS would do fine. The webserver supports the scripting language, the scripting language is used to code the dynamic webpage.
So it's Apache/PHP, or IIS/ASP, IIS/.NET, IIS/PHP.. Apache/ASP is much harder to configure and IIRC requires third-party software to get it configured. Not sure about Apache/.NET
That calender will probably need a database back-end as well, so might as well start talking MySQL, MSSQL, Access..etc as well. All those scripting languages will have code that allows you to interact with all kinds of databases, it's just a matter of learning some SQL.
as for email, it depends on what you intend to do with the email server. do you want it just for sending email from your webpage? or do you actually want a full-blown email server that handles mailboxes, distribution lists, etc?
for the first option, IIS has an optional SMTP server piece that can be used only for sending emails. Again, all those scripting languages will have code for interacting with an SMTP server. I use my IIS server to send mail from ASP and PHP pages with no problems.
for the second option, you're moving well away from the realm of web servers and into full-blown email servers, a totally different beast.
Thanks maw. You have been a great help. It sounds like IIS is my way to go in the future revisions of my site. But for now I can only afford Apache. Will I have any issues using Apache for basic CSS & HTML without any flash, scripting, etc...just plain basic code and some plain pictures?
Also, I will be using email for people to respond to the site. So, what kind of email service does Apache have? If I ever decide to go to a full-blown email server for like a home email server with maybe a few other church users, what are some good ones, that don't cost an arm and a leg? What kind of hurdles will I expect with a full-blown email server?
And last but not least, when I can afford Windows 2003 Server, I heard that IIS6 can host multiple websites with one IP Address...Is this true? You mentioned MySQL & MSSQL. What are these? I think I know MSSQL is Microsoft SQL Server, but have no experience with it at all. Is MySQL a Linux version of MSSQL?
Thanks again in advance.
Bob2001
Also, I will be using email for people to respond to the site. So, what kind of email service does Apache have? If I ever decide to go to a full-blown email server for like a home email server with maybe a few other church users, what are some good ones, that don't cost an arm and a leg? What kind of hurdles will I expect with a full-blown email server?
And last but not least, when I can afford Windows 2003 Server, I heard that IIS6 can host multiple websites with one IP Address...Is this true? You mentioned MySQL & MSSQL. What are these? I think I know MSSQL is Microsoft SQL Server, but have no experience with it at all. Is MySQL a Linux version of MSSQL?
Thanks again in advance.
Bob2001
perl IS NOT php.aringail said:
Please never make this mistake again, :]
perl is faster, and more powerful, and better... :]
In response to other things..
I have no problem with apache's log files, i manage them fine.
I perfer apache's config files too....
Apache can handle large sites fine, its easy to run, setup, config, etc IMO.
My vote's for apache :]
edit://
Apache can host multiple things on one IP too.
rsnellma said:
nope..
can't really answer that one, sorry..
so can Apache. hosting multiple websites on the same IP address can be done in two way: using different port numbers, or using host headers.
they are database servers. Like Apache, MySQL is open-source and can run on just about any platform.
I strongly recommend you use PHP as your scripting language because
- it's easy to learn
- it's very powerful
- lots and lots and lots of free documentation and help available on the web.
- it's platform independent, so if you start out with Apache, then later move to IIS, your PHP scripts will still work fine (assuming the webserver is configured properly).
ditto for MySQL.
you seem pretty new at all this, so go slow. it's a pretty long list of things you're going to have to learn, so plan on dedicating a few months to getting the basics down.
however, getting your basic webserver up and running and serving static HTML/CSS is a nice easy first step.
this site helped me get Apache and running in short order. or just do a google search for WAMP or LAMP
BillLeeLee
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2003
- Messages
- 13,486
rsnellma said:
Yes, that should be no problem, CSS/HTML aren't server side - they're client side. So it depends on the kind of CSS/HTML you use and the user's browser's ability to display it correctly. Flash is also client-side, as is Javascript. Scripting like PHP or Perl is server side.
As far as I know, Apache is strictly just an HTTP webserver; it doesn't have an MTA built into it. For that you'll probably need another mail server like Exchange in Windows. In Linux you can have a choice of sendmail, qmail, postfix, etc. I'm not much help in this department, sorry.
Apache can host multiple websites on one IP address as well, though I forget the technical term used to refer to it.
MSSQL is Microsoft SQL server yes. It's a database. MySQL is also a database program, separate from MSSQL server. It's available for Linux and Windows, as well as other OSes. Then there are others like Oracle, Firebird, and Postgre (my personal favorite).
Which reminds me to reestablish my Linux box because I can't make the webpage I want in Windows.
I suggest perl over PHP, it might be slightly harder, but its more powerful, there is ALOT more code and modules out there for perl too. perl is also platform independent, it'll run it pretty much any system out there.maw said:
Virtual Hosts.BillLeeLee said:
BillLeeLee
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2003
- Messages
- 13,486
shaine said:
Thanks for refreshing my memory about that. I thought it was virtual hosting, but was unsure.
I'll probably be bringing this a little off-topic (sorry rsnellma), but shaine, I was wondering what else can be done with perl? I use it a lot to write regular scripts or even full blown programs since it's so fast to program in, and I've used it a lot for CGI scripts. This poses a problem in an environment where the CGI script is called many times since a new process has to be spawned (of course, not sure about PHP in that regard, haven't used PHP as much as I have used Perl).
Do you use mod_perl? I've been getting into it, and from talks on perl.com, some users have moved away from CGI and focused on mod_perl with template::toolkit and such. Thanks for any input. Of course, my host doesn't allow mod_perl for managed shared hosting, so yeah...
I use perl for CGI alot, and also for other things offline too.BillLeeLee said:
I'm reading about mod_perl now, it's a great thing.
I'm actually gonna re-write some of my stuff to use mod_perl too.
Perl is faster and more powerful then PHP.
I'm pretty sure PHP doesn't fork a new process.. but perl is still faster.
edit://
Also sorry about going off-topic.
Thanks again to all. You have been a great help and encouraging. I know there are so many variables when developing a site these days, so I am trying my best to focus on the basics. Building a good foundation to me is key. Because with a good foundation in place I can easliy add onto from there. Just a few more questions. With Windows 2003 Server w/ IIS6 would I need CALs to host my site? What about later on when I start using server side stuff? You keep mentioning log file management, why is this such a big deal? And lastly, is it better to run Apache on a Linux box or a Windows box or does it matter? Thanks again to all.
Bob2001
Bob2001
rsnellma said:
Logfiles are critical for debuging scripts, tracking down odd behavior, gathering feelgood hit statistics, and so on. So keeping them organized is a benefit. Personally I don't see what the issue is. You just have to setup a directory structure to organize system logs and virtual host logs and setup a daily log rotate. Not sure how IIS could be any easier, but then I havnt really played with IIS much.
NETWARE! <j/k... sorta>rsnellma said:
personally I think it's just whatever you feel most comfortable administrating. some people may invoke the "windows has a higher frequency of exploits" arguement here, but stuff happens. If you're not familiar with Linux, then it would be easy to argue that you wouldnt be a very proficient admin and may unknowingly leave some holes open.
*shrug* like I said.. it's whatever you're most proficient and comfortable with.
That said.. I would venture to say that Apache on Linux would be faster provided you dont have every process under the sun running.
rsnellma said:
I don't think you need CAL's for an Internet facing server (you still need the server license of course).
Log files can be very important for monitoring what type of traffic your website is getting, such as most requested pages and files, user demographics (browser types, OS platforms referrer IP addresses). it's also a good way to track down the source of denial-of-service attacks, hacking attempts, etc. For small websites this really may never come up as an issue, but for larger websites or the just plain curious, log files can reveal a lot of useful info. Note: you will need a log file analyzer program to get any useful info from the log files, since they sort through all the raw data and formats it into nice looking pie charts and statistical reports.
I've run Apache on all flavors of Windows with no problems whatsoever. There should be no problems at all on Linux (you'll need to know your way around Linux first though). It really is the superior choice if you're not planning on running ASP or .NET or if budget is a concern. Heck the vast majority of the web runs on Apache.
So, what if I didn't care about log files at this moment, could I fire up Apache and get it up and running my site witout log filing, then later start log filing? Thanks again. You guys, (gals) don't want to assume anything, are the best. Thanks again.
Bob2001
Bob2001
Apache has ~70% of the webserver market says ye olde netcraft. Granted IIS might be the second most used, but with less than 1/3 the use of apache (20% of the market for those that didn't RTFA) it just does not hold a candle to apache.
Now what have you learned?
imo if its not apache, its not a webserver.
edit: [H]ardocp and the [H]ardforums are served via apache on freebsd. Also obtained from netcraft.
Now what have you learned?
imo if its not apache, its not a webserver.
edit: [H]ardocp and the [H]ardforums are served via apache on freebsd. Also obtained from netcraft.
I'll throw my comments in to the ring.
Sounds like you want to host a Web site for a church, with some interactive features (calendar, mail) and a couple of other things. I hope my assumption is correct.
Why not just have it professionally hosted? I see a lot of talk about "when I can afford X," so why not pay $5 a month and have someone like Total Choice Hosting do your hosting for you? That's who I go through, and I have everything at my disposal to do the things you want--PHP, access logs, mail, forums, the works. No problem.
You'd be looking at $60 a year if you paid monthly (I think they have discounts if you pay in advance), so over a couple of years you'd still be cheaper than buying a Web server and server software.
That way, you don't have to worry about configuring things just so, or getting things to work, or hacking, or anything. Believe me--I run a Web server at work (Gentoo Linux with Apache), and my personal stuff is hosted by Total Choice Hosting. It's much simpler with the latter.
Sounds like you want to host a Web site for a church, with some interactive features (calendar, mail) and a couple of other things. I hope my assumption is correct.
Why not just have it professionally hosted? I see a lot of talk about "when I can afford X," so why not pay $5 a month and have someone like Total Choice Hosting do your hosting for you? That's who I go through, and I have everything at my disposal to do the things you want--PHP, access logs, mail, forums, the works. No problem.
You'd be looking at $60 a year if you paid monthly (I think they have discounts if you pay in advance), so over a couple of years you'd still be cheaper than buying a Web server and server software.
That way, you don't have to worry about configuring things just so, or getting things to work, or hacking, or anything. Believe me--I run a Web server at work (Gentoo Linux with Apache), and my personal stuff is hosted by Total Choice Hosting. It's much simpler with the latter.
-Sean Casey
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2004
- Messages
- 672
Well a computer costs about $5 bucks a month on the electric bill. So it would break even even if if he had everything ready to go, of course this does not account for time for managing the server basic functions, etc.
Hosting locally has advantages, but is not always the best as in some cases it has its disadvantages. Especially with less experienced admins.
Hosting locally has advantages, but is not always the best as in some cases it has its disadvantages. Especially with less experienced admins.
-Sean Casey said:
That's just it. My time is worth money to me--that is, I'm willing to pay $60 a year for the ease of use. I also don't have to worry about updating the system, patching, worrying about hacks, and so on. Things just plain work the vast majority of time. I don't have to worry about PHP conflicting with package X, orthe dependencies of some add-on do-hickey.
Much simpler, in my opinion, to go with a hosting service. While it's a lot of fun to host your own box, it's also a lot of work. I'd rather spend my time on designing a kick-ass site.
Yes, your assumptions are correct. I am building a site for my church. I have thought about having it hosted and all, but I also, wanted the experience of doing it all myself too. I may apply for webmaster at my job if and when it becomes available, but before I can do that I need to know the ins and outs of website design, management, etc. But then again the hosting thing is sounding better, less work, especially since I deal with computers all day long. It would just seem like I was bringing my work home and my wife would not be happy about that. Anyways, thank you for all your help and I look forward to diving into Linux and learning the ins and outs of that as well as Apache and such. I was wondering what is a good novice Linux distro? What is the best all around Linux distro out? (RedHat, Fedora Core, ClarkConnect, Gentoo, Debian, Mandrake,etc.) There are just so many and I have no idea what the differences are and why so many to begin with. Thanks again.
Bob2001
Bob2001
I, personally, would recommend one step at a time.
-- start with a managed host. Learn the web page tech you need.
-- set up a development webserver / database system at home. You can really do this side-by-side with the above, just don't do it all at once. Get Apache running. Then get PHP running. Then get a database running. Learn the admin and configuration stuff. However, even for Apache, I'd advise doing this with Windows. All the stuff that is Apache-specific will have negligible changes cross-platform, and you'll already understand the OS.
-- now set up a linux webserver. You'll need to learn the OS stuff but the Apache maintenance will not be anything new. Doing this piecemeal will help keep you from throwing up your hands in disgust.
-- start with a managed host. Learn the web page tech you need.
-- set up a development webserver / database system at home. You can really do this side-by-side with the above, just don't do it all at once. Get Apache running. Then get PHP running. Then get a database running. Learn the admin and configuration stuff. However, even for Apache, I'd advise doing this with Windows. All the stuff that is Apache-specific will have negligible changes cross-platform, and you'll already understand the OS.
-- now set up a linux webserver. You'll need to learn the OS stuff but the Apache maintenance will not be anything new. Doing this piecemeal will help keep you from throwing up your hands in disgust.
rsnellma said:
Glad to help. In the future, I'd definitely suggest running your own box if you have the time and money to do so (not to mention a good high-speed network connection to the server). It's a lot of fun to do, and if you have a particular bit of software you need installed, you can do it--you don't need to worry about having the host do it for you, if they will at all. Or if you want to expand and have a bunch of new domains, or subdomains, or anything like that, it's easy to do too.
Great fun!