Jump to content

IIS6 vs. Apcache


Recommended Posts

Actually, Apache is kicking ISS' arse. Let me explain:

HTML was not created to dual parallel loading, so since the IIS frame is first in the HTML document it gets that fraction of a second before the Apache server gets the call. That in of it's self doesn't matter as much as since Apache gets the call second it doesn't make it's SQL queries until after IIS does. And on occasion it is STILL loading faster while using HALF the amount of ram.

They are also redireting through Alexia, so this may just be a ploy to bump the sites' stats

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I checked the link yesterday, and again today. Yesterday the load time was measured as 1.6-1.7 for each server, with IIS taking about 2-3 times more memory in the process. I look today and the times are 0.61 vs 0.64 in favor of IIS, but again while using triple the ram. When you're running a HUGE server farm this might be deemed a significant difference in response time, but for most people I doubt it would matter. Same with the memory. So Apache needs 10 while IIS needs 30. Most machines come with 1 gig by default, and probably more. It's not wise to be wasteful, but let's not get overboard, shall we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to see how apache on linux tuned by an apache expert fairs against IIS tuned by a IIS expert to be honest. From what I've seen when you get to HUGE sites or your being /.'d IIS does seem to hold its own against apache. IE the type of situation where cost isn't the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am using the latest version of Opera with Windows XP Home on a laptop with 512 MB RAM, 1.6 GHz Turion 64, and an internet speed of around 1-3 MBits per second.

Here's my load times and everything (as of July 1, 6:18 PST):


Secs to load this run             0.69360303878784

Average Secs to load all runs 1.7447162742801

Memory used                           27262976


Secs to load this run             0.64054203033447

Average Secs to load all runs 2.3421287151705

Memory used                           11010048


IIS - Apache = Total

Secs to load this run             0.0530610085

Average Secs to load all runs -0.597412441

Memory used                           16252928

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to see how apache on linux tuned by an apache expert fairs against IIS tuned by a IIS expert to be honest.

Digg is slow. But it's quite possible that MySQL is the slow down there rather then just Apache. Perhaps the next test is MSSQL Vs MySQL Vs Oracle. Though I would be kind of worried if Oracle didn't come out on top since there database software is there main focus and they have money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the database really a factor here, since both servers are using it? The only thing I can think of favoring either setup is when they would both be trying to access the same DB simultaneously. I wouldn't expect the guy running this thing to be that stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, why don't we setup our own version of the test? IIS6 on Windows 2K3 vs Apache2 on *nix. Could even do a default configuration vs tweaking test.

I could do that easy. I've got a spare Mini-ITX with 2 harddisks and a gig of ram lying around. Should be peanuts to use for a comparison. But, alas, time... the final frontier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparisons like this are all well and good, but they do ignore the fact that if you use win2k3 you are locked in to microsoft tech. The licensing is insane and i'm sure it won't be long before they start charging for updates. I use win2k, win2k3 and apache daily at work. If you are stuck with using IIS, i'd just stick with win2k and be done with it. You have to tweak it like a mo fo though... "mmc /s" is your friend :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paranoid blogging at its best.

Russ Jones

Jul 6th 2007

Please consider my comments currently at reddit. I am Russ Jones, the creator of the test…

1. I didn’t try to hide my identity

- I submitted the story with the russvirante account at Digg.

- I gave my name and company in comments at Digg and Reddit

- I expressly said I created it.

2. There is no link between us and the winner of the competition.

- I use a random whois address and a psuedonym for whois because I dont want spam mail

- Our IPs were both from Georgia, but theGoogleCache is hosted at Peer 1, who was not competing.

3. We used basic text and code to ensure the answer we wanted was the answer we got. Using mysql would have shown us which servers have the best combination of database caching and bandwidth throughput. We just wanted to know about bandwidth throughput. This was an intentional variable control.

There is a lot more thorough information that discredits the entirity of this story included in the reddit post that i have linked to…


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...