Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Apache: Users

Apache for Windows

 

 

Apache users RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


Robin.Kopetzky at kafb

Dec 13, 2001, 8:23 AM

Post #1 of 5 (202 views)
Permalink
Apache for Windows

Good Morning.

I have Apache 1.3.22 running on a Linux box but am wondering how
stable a Windoz version of 1.3.22 is. I am thinking of using this version as
a primary server for an ISP to start off with, eventually switching to
Linux. Most of my people who will have access to uploading files and so on
are Windoz literate when it comes to daily operations moreso than Linux. I'm
still slowly learning Linux and I, too, understand Windoz NT much better. I
know there are many issues with server security on an NT box vs Linux but I
have all of the current NT patches and service packs as I use these at my
normal job.

Any thought, comments, pro's or con's (no flames), would be greatly
appreciated.

Robin E. Kopetzky - 'Sparky'
ACS/GSG - Software Development Specialist - SAS
Air Force Safety Center
Kirtland Air Force Center
9700 Avenue G SE #279A
Albuquerque, NM 87117-5670
(505) 853-7417
DSN 263-7417

"Human beings can always be counted on to assert with vigor their God-given
right to be stupid." - Dean Koontz in 'False Memory'

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe [at] httpd
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help [at] httpd


ithum at it97

Dec 13, 2001, 9:05 AM

Post #2 of 5 (190 views)
Permalink
Re: Apache for Windows [In reply to]

----- Original Message -----
From: Kopetzky Robin CIV AFSC/SEP <Robin.Kopetzky [at] kafb>
Date: Thursday, December 13, 2001 4:23 pm
Subject: Apache for Windows

> I have Apache 1.3.22 running on a Linux box but am wondering how
> stable a Windoz version of 1.3.22 is. I am thinking of using this
> version as
> a primary server for an ISP to start off with, eventually
> switching to
> Linux. Most of my people who will have access to uploading files
> and so on
> are Windoz literate when it comes to daily operations moreso than
> Linux. I'm
> still slowly learning Linux and I, too, understand Windoz NT much
> better. I
> know there are many issues with server security on an NT box vs
> Linux but I
> have all of the current NT patches and service packs as I use
> these at my
> normal job.
>
> Any thought, comments, pro's or con's (no flames), would be
> greatlyappreciated.
>
for many reasons you should go with Linux.
Once I've worked for an ISP with developers fixed to Win.
There are quite a lot of possibilities for the programmers:
1) you can add a Samba server who appears into the win neighborhood
so that can upload their programs onto the test server
2) you can make a tail on log files available for the intranet via shtml so they can study the logs in the browser
and more...
Regards
i.t


---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe [at] httpd
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help [at] httpd


nick.boyce at eds

Dec 13, 2001, 10:39 AM

Post #3 of 5 (197 views)
Permalink
RE: Apache for Windows [In reply to]

On 13.Dec.2001 Robin Kopetzky asked :

> I have Apache 1.3.22 running on a Linux box but am wondering how
> stable a Windoz version of 1.3.22 is. I am thinking of using this version
as
> a primary server for an ISP
[...]
> Any thought, comments, pro's or con's (no flames), would be greatly
> appreciated.

I agree with Irmund Thum - you should not (yet ?) contemplate using
Apache-for-Windows as a production platform - it has too many limitations in
performance, capacity, security and stability.

[. The (yet ?) is because apparently this situation will improve when Apache
2.x is released. ]

Use a Linux box for your primary Apache platform - you won't be sorry. We
do, and the box is so stable we never have to pay it any attention, apart
from applying occasional security patches (easy with RedHat), or developing
Perl CGI routines - no reboots ever, unattended backups to another box,
etc., etc. Every time another NT/2K/IIS security hole comes around we
breath deeply, and count our lucky stars, and watch the mayhem unfold
elsewhere.

We run Samba on the Linux box, which means all the HTML authors can map
network drives to it and use Windoze tools for page authoring, and never
need to become (indeed some still aren't) aware that the box isn't a real
Windows server. You *do* have to be a bit clever with the Samba
configuration to ensure that teams of HTML authors create files with
cooperative permissions and file ownership.

And I can tell you that this 50 MHz SPARC machine with 32 MB RAM seems to
outperform NT IIS servers we have with 400 MHz Intel CPUs and 128 MB RAM -
the response time is much snappier.

Having said all that, some people here *do* use Apache-for-Windows for
*development* or test purposes, safe in the knowledge that it's better and
safer than M$ PWS, and probably better (certainly safer) than IIS, and lets
them become familiar with Apache configuration issues.

Whichever platform (Win32/Linux) you end up using, consider using the
directive "ServerTokens Prod" in httpd.conf, to restrict the identification
string Apache supplies to being "Server: Apache" - i.e. Apache refrains from
saying whether it's running on Unix or Windows - this avoids giving the
Blackhats too much help, but allows Netcraft's survey to correctly identify
another Apache server :-)

My 2 cents.

Nick Boyce
EDS Southwest Solution Centre, Bristol, UK

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe [at] httpd
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help [at] httpd


joshua at slive

Dec 13, 2001, 11:05 AM

Post #4 of 5 (192 views)
Permalink
RE: Apache for Windows [In reply to]

> From: Boyce, Nick [mailto:nick.boyce [at] eds]

> On 13.Dec.2001 Robin Kopetzky asked :
>
> > I have Apache 1.3.22 running on a Linux box but am wondering how
> > stable a Windoz version of 1.3.22 is. I am thinking of using
> this version
> as
> > a primary server for an ISP
> [...]
> > Any thought, comments, pro's or con's (no flames), would be greatly
> > appreciated.
>
> I agree with Irmund Thum - you should not (yet ?) contemplate using
> Apache-for-Windows as a production platform - it has too many
> limitations in
> performance, capacity, security and stability.

I'm not really a win32 expert, but let me point out something: Almost
everyone will agree that Apache for unix-like platforms is superior in
performance/security/stability to Apache for win32. But many people also
have good reason to believe that Apache for win32 is a superior server to
any other win32 server in terms of security/stability/features. IIS will be
faster, but that does not make it a better server. So if you are stuck on
windows, then Apache is not a bad choice, especially, as you mention, if you
plan to migrate to unix.

Joshua.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe [at] httpd
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help [at] httpd


nick.boyce at eds

Dec 14, 2001, 7:12 AM

Post #5 of 5 (189 views)
Permalink
RE: Apache for Windows [In reply to]

On 13.Dec.2001 Joshua Slive said :

> Almost everyone will agree that Apache for unix-like platforms is
> superior in performance/security/stability to Apache for win32.
> But many people also have good reason to believe that Apache
> for win32 is a superior server to any other win32 server in terms
> of security/stability/features. IIS will be faster, but that does not
> make it a better server.

Just noticed this relevant story at "Web Techniques", mentioned in this
week's Apache Week newsletter with the description :
"A Feather in Your NT Cap" persuades users running Microsoft's
Internet Information Server (IIS) on Windows NT to migrate to
Apache on NT. It lists the three limitations of Apache's ISAPI
implementation, describes two main ways of installation, gives an
overview of the configuration, and shows you how to start Apache as
an NT service.
http://www.webtechniques.com/archives/2002/01/serv/

Cheers,

Nick Boyce
EDS Southwest Solution Centre, Bristol, UK

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe [at] httpd
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help [at] httpd

Apache users RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.