Gossamer Forum
Home : Products : Gossamer Links : Pre Sales :

Suggested Hosts (NT)

Quote Reply
Suggested Hosts (NT)
I am just about to purchase Links SQL but am looking for suggestions for a hosting. My current ISP is not really sure if they want a search engine. The kicker is that I do other things unders my domain with some FrontPage and ASP... so I need a NT ISP with both the Perle and MS and SQL server - any suggestions for a reasonable host (who is not adverse to hosting Links SQL?) Any help would be appreciated!

Thanx,
Rick

Quote Reply
Re: Suggested Hosts (NT) In reply to
The problem you will find is that NT hosting is just not as reliable, or as powerful as Unix hosting, and you will find a lot fewer ISP's willing to do it under the same considerations.

If you absolutely have to have NT, you will probably have to find an ISP that offers NT on DEDICATED servers. I cannot see doing a site of any size on a shared server for long - if at all.

If you look at the various lists of hosting/ISP's the larger ones all offer some sort of dedicated package with NT as an option. The advantage is that there are more places willing to give you a dedicated NT server than to try to share them -- especially for cgi intenstive sites.



http://www.postcards.com
FAQ: http://www.postcards.com/FAQ/LinkSQL/

Quote Reply
Re: Suggested Hosts (NT) In reply to
I don't mind NT, however CGI on NT is not acceptable for medium to large sites. The performance hit using CGI on NT machines is about 3 to 4 times more then on Unix servers. This is due to the overhead in spawning processes.

If you need NT, I would recommend PerlEX http://www.activestate.com/perlex/, or an ASP based solution.

Cheers,

Alex

--
Gossamer Threads Inc.
Quote Reply
Re: Suggested Hosts (NT) In reply to
Since links outputs plain html pages wouldn't the only time you see a difference be when you build a page or when someone does a search?

Randall

Quote Reply
Re: Suggested Hosts (NT) In reply to
Not to mention that with native installs of NT IIS 4.0 and ActiveState's Perl...there are security holes all over the place for .cgi/.pl scripts. Installing the hotfixes for these security problems are a bear, since you also have to re-install the Option Pack before you can use the server.

Regards,

Quote Reply
Re: Suggested Hosts (NT) In reply to
Correct, it's only on the searches that it's really important. Again, for small to medium sites (not more then 3-4 hits per second) it's not that important. But as you gain traffic, NT won't be usable whereas on Unix you can typically get 8-12 cgi hits per second before things start to slow down.

Cheers,

Alex

--
Gossamer Threads Inc.
Quote Reply
Re: Suggested Hosts (NT) In reply to
Is that 3-4 search hits or 3-4 page hits per second? Also will the new banner system mean that each page will hit the database and if so how will this handle large sites? How would you classify 1 million page views per month: small medium or large?

Randall

Quote Reply
Re: Suggested Hosts (NT) In reply to
what constitutes a "hit" is nebulous. A page hit can bog down an NT server a lot quicker than a Unix server. cgi scripting will increase this even more. Unix handles processes much better than NT. There are long discussions about this on the Apache and the Perl websites.

You won't find exact comparasons, since M$ rigs any "official" tests by using optimized NT systems and out of the box Unix systems, and usually Unix wins anyway. There are long discussions about this on various computer and nerd sites.

If you want to get maximum performance out of your website use Apache and Unix on a Sun/Sparc. Next, use Apache/Unix on Intel. Everything else comes after that.

NT is only good if you have a lot invested in windows programmers, and you can't afford to train them on the front end. You will pay 10x more in the long run on the back end... but some people insist on using NT.

A webserver is _NOT_ a desktop machine, and it should be doing NOTHING but running your website. That can include mail handling and database, but if you are trying to run other applications on it, you are creating problems that are not necessary, and may come back to haunt you. Given that, once you learn a few Unix commands, there is no difference in an NT website or a Unix one, except you'll get better performance, less down time, fewer over-load messages, fewer crashes, more hits-per-second processing and better response from the Unix system. You'll find more ISP's willing to host you, more people willing to support you, and much cheaper support contracts. Also, you'll feel like you have to reboot the machine every few months just because you are so used to a windows system you'll feel it has to be done. It's not unusual for Unix systems uptime to be measured in months or years rather than hours, days or weeks.









http://www.postcards.com
FAQ: http://www.postcards.com/FAQ/LinkSQL/

Quote Reply
Re: Suggested Hosts (NT) In reply to
That's 3-4 cgi requests. Both Apache and IIS can dish out massive of html pages, anywhere in the neighborhood of 200-300 per second. More then your bandwidth would probably allow.

Where the difference comes into play is in the programming. CGI on NT is slow, slow, slow. This is why Microsoft wants you to use ASP. ASP is integrated into the server and does not have the overhead that CGI has.

If you are running a medium to large site (> 1 million cgi requests a month), you should really either be on a Unix box, or use Perlex or ASP.

Cheers,

Alex

--
Gossamer Threads Inc.
Quote Reply
Re: Suggested Hosts (NT) In reply to
I had some comparasons in the past.

A Unix machine (BSD) on a 486-66 could saturate a T1 line with raw html pages/graphics.

This was way back, when I had my first T1-server.

A Pentium could out perform the T1 bandwidth, but it bogged down with cgi requests and other overhead. Remember, serving an HTML page is just a grab a page and push it out a port. With a fast I/O, limited number of served pages, and a good cache you can get awesome speed.

Unix does this better than NT. There are real divided camps on this.

When it comes to CGI, even ASP, you start seeing differences between Unix and NT, and as I said, you can read about it on the Apache website.

Using all M$ components -- fast intel chip, lots of ram, and microsofts own server products with their own scripting (ASP) modules you can get close to Unix performance, but at what price??

One of my favorite things was with NT 3.51 --- I loaded MS Word, and my system usage went up to 80%+ just SITTING doing "nothing" with no documents loaded. I don't trust NT, and I don't even trust Windows 9x. With Unix you can see the code, and know what it's doing. With anything from M$, too much is hidden, and too much goes on behind the scene -- all the disc access, memory shuffling, network ack, etc.

I also don't like the debug and back-door codes left in windows. I had NT inform me on boot up that I was no longer using any RAS services and promptly had it remove the entire subsystem. Unfortunately, I was running a 10-line BBs on that machine, and RAS was about the only "system" feature I was using....

I had a big psychological block moving to Unix. It lasted about one month as I was thrown into the mix of having to use it. Now, my next desktops will probably be Unix machines, and I will keep the old machines for windows programs I have no other choice but to run.

WIth the new web-based world, M$ is much less a factor in the development cycle than it used to be.



http://www.postcards.com
FAQ: http://www.postcards.com/FAQ/LinkSQL/

Quote Reply
Re: Suggested Hosts (NT) In reply to
I think you are being a bit harsh on NT. A good url to use as a rough guide(compiled by mod_perl mailing list, so if anything it is unix biased) is:

http://www.chamas.com/bench/

If we are talking about just raw html performance, then both systems can easily handle all but the largest jobs.

Where you see the difference is in programming requests. You can see that regular perl/cgi on NT is about 10-50x slower then ASP (mod_perl still performs much better than ASP though, Wink). CGI (any type, it's not just perl here) on NT is fine for small to medium sites though, but as your site grows you will need to find alternatives (either move to Unix, use ASP, or consider something like PerlEX which will boost performance of your perl cgi scripts).

Don't get me wrong, I much prefer working on a unix machine and wouldn't dream of hosting my site on NT. However, that's primairly because 90% of my site is based in perl, and its just not the right tool for the job.

Cheers,

Alex

--
Gossamer Threads Inc.
Quote Reply
Re: Suggested Hosts (NT) In reply to
Alex,

I see we are in different camps :)

One thing that supports my contention, is how many times do you get a Unix machine showing you one of those "can't handle load" or "too many processes" messages? I forget exactly. But you know the screen I mean.

Both operating systems can handle medium sites, and medium load on the CPU or system. Once you start hitting 80+% loads (based on the Unix report) you start to see big differences in what the machines do. What this works out to, is NT requires more hardware sooner than Unix. Also, Intel requires more hardware sooner than Sparc.

I need to also say this: I was a windows/NT person up until about 18 months ago. The only experience I had with Unix is when it first came out, and using FTP to move files to my servers. I had no other interaction with it. I knew I didn't like it then because of all the problems I was having.

18 months ago I had to get my own server, and I became my own wizop, and in many ways my own ISP. It's a colo box, and I wanted to know everything I could about it, and make it work. I'm no where near an expert with Unix, I can set up the programs, make them work, and do most routine system/network tasks, but I know it's working better with Unix than I ever had with NT.

For years I was running a multi-line BBS. I tried Dos with Quarterdeck (the standard at the time), and when OS/2 2.0 came out, I moved up to that, then to Warp. I found it unbelievably stable, probably the most stable system I've ever used on a PC. But, M$ went out to kill it. Everything they did was to support Win 3.1 or NT at the time, and purposly did things to make sure OS/2 couldn't run Win 3.x programs, and other stuff.

I was in the thick of it, trying to run a network, and I needed the best OS. OS/2 _WAS_ a better windows than windows! If a windows program crashed in one window (I hey... It was still Windows!) only_that_ window was afected. No other window. I didn't have to worry about closing all the other windows and rebooting the machine. I could run 10 dos sessions, plus all the maintennance I needed, and still run 8 2400 baud ports off a DigiBoard. I rebooted the OS/2 machine once a week whether it needed it or not just to make _me_ feel better. The co-existing windows machine rebooted itself 2-3x a day whether I wanted it to or not!

Then, the program I was using decided that to become multi-tasking, it would choose NT over OS/2. Big disappointment.

I beta'd that program for a year before I finally moved to the web.

If a Windows 16-bit program crashed in NT, it took the ENTIRE 16-bit subsystem with it. Sure, the 32-bit system kept running, but the only way to run any other 16-bit program was to shut the whole thing down, and reboot.

Then there were the complicated, back-a$$-ward security features.

Ever have two or 3 NT machines working in a network, then take one down without following the "I know you, you know me, we're one happy family" proceedure???

<sigh>

Fortunately, GT is using PERL, perl is made for Unix, and perhaps the fact the programs are so good will help other people move from the windows world to the "real" world :)

So, just for the record ... I'm not talking from some hot-blooded point of view of picking an OS that _I_ liked. I tried them _all_ and had problems with everything except OS/2 (unless you call M$ a problem...) and Unix has been the best for me. I'm going to move my desktop/local network to Unix, since 90% of what I do is web/network now, and my new portable will have a dual boot for the few windows programs I still have to run now and again.

The web has been the great equalizer. M$ finally has to _compete_ in a changing world. I don't give them much hope. Too arrogant, selfcentered, selfish, and greedy.

"I may be wrong, you know, I may be right": Billy Joel.


http://www.postcards.com
FAQ: http://www.postcards.com/FAQ/LinkSQL/

Quote Reply
Re: Suggested Hosts (NT) In reply to
Well I have found a great web host at www.below10host.com

I currently get 100mb space, 100 pop emails, cgi-bin, MySQL server, URL redirection, password protected directories, mailing list and MORE all for $6.95 per month - Customer service is EXCELLENT!

You can go for a deal for about $19.95 and get about 500mb space with loads of features - give it a try!

Bye

Thankyou
From Paul Wilson.
Quote Reply
Re: Suggested Hosts (NT) In reply to
Why do we try pugdog? Wink

Alex

--
Gossamer Threads Inc.
Quote Reply
Re: Suggested Hosts (NT) In reply to
this is about Unix and NT
what about Linux ,dos is it work like Unix guys?

Quote Reply
Re: Suggested Hosts (NT) In reply to
Alex,

I think it's the same reason people have climbed that mountain -- because it's there. :)

I was a computer hacker from the first minute I touched a 120 baud teletype machine.

Couldn't add or subtract, but I could write basic programs to do matrix arithmetic and even fix logic problems in the suggested "answers."

In college I spent more time in front of an HP terminal in the cinderblock dungeons than most people spent in bed, and certainly 2-3x more time than I spent in, or on, my classes.

Some people are born to do things.... I think I was born to wrestle computers, and now that no one company controls any aspect of the field, it's getting to be a lot more fun.

(For the record, I don't think M$ controls it any more, _but_ they are still anti-competitively, and unfairly, trying to, and still hurting as many companies as they can in the process, and they need to be severely punished -- and restrained -- for the current -- and past -- behaviours.)



http://www.postcards.com
FAQ: http://www.postcards.com/FAQ/LinkSQL/