Apache Webserver Surpasses 50 Million Website Mark

chris81 writes "For the first time ever, the Apache Web Server is powering more than 50 million websites, according to Netcraft's Web Server Survey for October. Although relative share fell by 0.67 percent, the total number of sites powered by Apache grew to over 52 million. Microsoft's IIS finished second with more than 15 million sites served."

...and

Netcraft confirms it

Re:...and

I wonder how they count it when you have different names for a single site:

<VirtualHost *>
                ServerName urukpr0n.angband.pl
                ServerAlias urukporn.angband.pl urukp0rn.angband.pl urukpron.angband.pl
[...]
(No, this site [angband.pl] isn't what you think.)

This is especially important if you count the fact that in a lot of cases www.$SITE is a CNAME for $SITE.

Re:...and

Not 23 million actual servers, just 23 million different sites. Probably hosted on just a few hundred thousand physical servers. Netcraft "active sites" calculation is based on an estimate from contacting each server IP address a few times using a selection of the registered names and then comparing them. e.g. if you host 4000 domains which all say "We own this domain $domain, why not offer us money for it?" Netcraft will notice that 4000 names lead to that IP address, connect say 14 times, get a very similar response each time and conclude that there is only one active site.

23 million servers would represent almost 1% of all unicast IPv4 addresses (and AFAIK Netcraft don't look for IPv6-only servers)

Err....

>>Microsoft's IIS finished second with more than 15 million sites served.
Now did they try to find how many actually work ;)

Logical Target

Look. Apache is targeted by all the script kiddies because it's SO popular. I mean, if you were a script kiddie and saw such a huge target as Apache, compared to the IIS install base, which one would YOU go after? You IIS *zealots* are a big turn-off to the rest of the web serving community.

I'm impressed

Not just that so many people and companies host websites on Apache, I'm more impressed that there are so many websites?

Such an enormous collection of data, it boggles my mind.

Re:I'm impressed

True. But once you remove the porn, there's only about 500 or so.

Re:I'm impressed

"I'm fairly sure that if they took all the porn off the Internet, there'd only be 1 website left, and it would be called Bring Back The Porn."
- Dr Cox from Scrubs.

what operating systems are popular with Apache?

I would be interested to see what OSes those sites are running on

Netcraft used to show a summary with that information. I'm not sure why they stopped showing it, since they do still collect it and show it for individual site queries. I suppose if enough people ask them to reinstate it, they might actually reply to one of the messages and explain the rationale. More likely than not it probably made it evident that one of their major advertisers **cough**MS**cough was losing market share to both other http servers and other platforms.

Along the same lines, I saw a recent IDC report that showed (if one looked at the data oneself) that MS was continuing to lose market share in the server room, at least percentage wise. My guess is that they took most of Novell's share around 2000 when they ran the smear campaign against Netware and then have been slowly hemorrhaging marketshare since then.

Re:I'm impressed

Such an enormous collection of data, it boggles my mind.

Here's a list of what the sites are (from most populous): 1: Porn sites
2: Spam sites
3: Spyware sites
4: Scamming sites
5: Warez sites
6: Blogs
7: Message boards
8: Wikipedia duplicates (where they copy and paste Wikipedia entries)
9: Software related sites
10: Other business related sites
11: Education-related websites.

As you can see, most of it is just rubbish.

Oh!

Isn't that the number of servers required just to power /.?

I smell a rat!

Micosoft salesrep

Microsoft salesrep: "You know, Apache's relative share fell by *cough*0.*cough* 67 percent!!!"

Re:Micosoft salesrep

IIS is also arguably faster, as it's running on a single architecture, on an OS designed by the same developer.

IIS is not arguably faster than Apache httpd, it is faster. What is arguable is the wisdom of running a server at ring0 (kernel address space). Apache was not designed for raw speed, it was designed to be full-featured, stable and correct. If you want to see IIS trounced by a kernel based httpd, take a look at TUX [redhat.com] and this (typically flawed) benchmark [litespeedtech.com]. The only good thing I have to say about IIS is that version 6 appears to have undergone a security audit and is no longer being rooted by simple HTTP GET requests (a genuine Microsoft innovation) like previous versions.

Re:Micosoft salesrep

Well there are the MS Fans out there who believe Microsoft's propaganda, and/or believe that Microsoft is the only serious player out there.

Secondly there are a lot of companies that are strictly a Microsoft shop, and the cost of moving is to high and the staff is use to windows so they stick with windows solutions they already bought.

Third they have a group of .NET developers and it is easy to for them to make a Web App on IIS vs. Getting Mono on Apache working, and working threw any of the glitches.

IIS is arguably easier to use then apache because you don't need to go threw and end a text file and add commands that may not be part of the default configuration.

Fear from ignorance, they are afraid if they don't use IIS then they will not be able to support the IE users, heck whenever they look at a pro-linux site who uses advanced CSS it rarely renders properly for them.

They already have Windows [NT, 2000, 2003] servers and they have IIS on them so they will use it, because they already paid for it.

It has been a long time since I heard of a major security flaws in IIS being affected and much longer for Apache. But you are expecting all the consumers to be logical, that is just crazy.

Notice the similarities

In the graphs acceleration compared to 2001/2002? :)

Actually...

It's because of php's increasing popularity, as this page [php.net] shows.

Re:Actually...

I wonder how it compares to this graph [venganza.org].

Odd lines in chart

The chart marked "Market Share for Top Servers Across All Domains August 1995 - October 2005" is interesting. I'm not entirely sure I understand what it means, but July 2001 and June 2004 show an almost mirror image in terms of the blue and red lines (Apache and MS.) When one goes up, the other goes down and vice-versa. Strange. I wonder what exactly was happening during that time period to cause that.

Re:Odd lines in chart

I'm not entirely sure I understand what it means, but July 2001 and June 2004 show an almost mirror image in terms of the blue and red lines (Apache and MS.) When one goes up, the other goes down and vice-versa. Strange. I wonder what exactly was happening during that time period to cause that.

Several big hosting providers were trying to switch their hosting between Apache and IIS. Providers that are big enough to actually make those kinds of dents in the graph. As you can see from the final result, most of them figured out Apache was the better solution. I wouldn't use IIS to serve HTML either, only if the content required .NET and you didn't really have a choice.

Kjella

Re:Odd lines in chart

Well. That is because of the contracts running with Microsoft. We have a contract (as hostingprovider) that x-% of the servers has to be Windows based so we recompiled Apache to show up as IIS and the next month Netcraft confirmed it, we moved 15000 sites (URL-forwarding) to IIS.

Re:Odd lines in chart

I'm not sure how IIS survives in the market place

They survive because of customer lock-in (aka "Integration" in salesspeak), "standardization" (with desktop systems) and the delusion (which is interestingly put forward by both pro- and anti Microsoft people) that "sooner or later" Microsoft will dominate every market and so it's better to bet on the winner.

However, with years of IIS being pretty stagnant or slowly losing marketshare, this delusion cannot be sustained forever, more and more people realize that OSS is not just a fad and is here to stay.

Also with each round of forced upgrades on the IIS-side, some jump ship.

It will probably will take a decade or two, but then IIS-fans will find themselves in the very situation they wanted to avoid: Being a tiny minority, fighting with bad 3rd party support and being frowned upon.

In some countries it already happened: In Germany, IIS runs only 5.56% [securityspace.com] of domains (down from over 20% 5 years ago) - cheap German webhosters don't offer Windows anymore at all, some webhosters charge extra for Windows and only few charge the same (however those are usually the most expensive webhosters anyway)

Re:Odd lines in chart

The big movers are the domain registrars; they'll host several hundred parked domains on a single server. While they're all using the same content (probably the same files, even), they'll show up as hundreds of sites. If they move from Apache to IIS (or vice versa), several hundred (or thousand?) websites appear to switch.

Now can we have the results for Gopher servers!

Just curious. Also would be nice to see the current amount of WAIS
and Archie servers left! :o)

What will LAMP's success mean to M$?

Well, actually they have their own plans [com.com].
and part of the plan is giving some for free! See SQL Server 2005 Express Edition's Pricing Policy [microsoft.com] and the same for Visual Studio Express Edition which will be free.
I don't do much open-source programming but I'd like to thank all those guys who do, cuz if it was not for their efforts, M$ would have never given something for free (at least as in beer!!)
Anyway, the point is that some small businesses might be attracted to M$'s side by giving these development tools for free and this might have an effect on Apache and as a whole LAMP's market share.

Re:Quality issue

I've got to disagree with you on this one. MS-SQL is about the -only- MS product that is worth a damn.

MySQL? I think you need to lay off the Kool-Aid. Postgresql? Maybe, but it doesn't come with the suite of tools that you get with MS-SQL.

Really, I dislike MS as much as the next slashbot, but MS SQL server is the exception to the rule.

Well happy birthday or something

I really can't see this as anything that'll come as a surprise to anyone, nor the fact that apache came first. I also have a feeling that the apache guys see this the same way, as it is nowhere to be found at http://apache.org/foundation/news.html/ [apache.org]. but i guess any round number is worth celebrating, after all free as in drunk, is as important as any other freedom ;)

What would be really interesting...

What would be really interesting would be a figure of total pages served (over the entire internet), grouped by server type. Or the average return opn investement, per server type. Number of hostnames really says nothing, I can add a few thousand myself with no trouble at all.

Three considerations

#1. Sites vs servers.
Netcraft states they count the sites while they don't mention whether they count 2nd level domains (foo.com), 3rd level domains (www.foo.com, support.foo.com) or what else. They just say they "received responses from 74,409,971 sites" while not defining what a site actually is.

#2. Growth.
There has been a growth of about 3.73% in the number of (so called) web sites. There must be some hidden winner(s). That is, there must be some group of web servers that is getting the great part of the growth all at once! Netcraft is failing to mention who they are!

#3. Webserver (or website) identification.
It's all but trivial to identify web servers. Are they using some special tool like amap [thc.org] and nmap [insecure.org] or just looking at the server response content? How accurate this identification can be?

Re:Three considerations

Follow the links in TFA. They you'll get to http://survey.netcraft.com/index-200007.html [netcraft.com] which says
"The Netcraft Web Server Survey is a survey of Web Server software usage on Internet connected computers. We collect and collate as many hostnames providing an http service as we can find, and systematically poll each one with an HTTP request for the server name."

Innovation

Don't want to be a troll, but what are the latest innovations Apache introduced lately to stay on top? I think we don't talk often enough about this software here on Slashdot. No, I'm not new here...

Great news, but keep in mind ...

This is really good news for the OS community, it shows a community product being chosen over a commerical application in the industry.

But keep in mind just because the server is not IIS and is Apache doesnt mean they arent running Windows Apache, I find lots of Windows admins leaning to Apache even when they have IIS readily available.

Just need to check

I'm just updating my fanboyism and I need to check some figures.

• IIS' 20% market share is rubbish.
• Firefox's 10% share is the greatest thing evar.

Yay!

Apache is doing awesome, however now that Microsoft is second, expect to see the commercials on TV:

"Is your host using IIS? No? Is it using ASP? NO?! Are you using OPEN SOURCE! (Evil sounding) opeeeennnn sourrrrceeeee.... If so you need to experience IIS! With its ability to make your developers coffee in the morning, and to block users who use that evil Google software from hacking your system! Call 1800MICROSHAFT today to get your free 12 minute introductory offer to IIS! Thats right TWELVE minutes folks! Microsoft nevers gives away free time on any of their products! During that 12 minutes you could host your own Porn site, or just blog about stupid stuff no one cares about, all using asp .net and a cheesey Access Database. Call today!"

Yay for Apache, but I really do think Microsoft will cause some issues on this and start pushing their stupid server software. While I do think IIS is easier to setup I think Apache is MUCH MUCH more stable. (experience with Tomcat and ::gasps:: JSP!)

Apache open recipe

well thats what you from collaboration. It has shown here that Two is better than one. Freedom is better than slavery.

Why use IIS?

Now, I'm not trying to be a troll. I just want to understand the reasons that make someone choose IIS over Apache, since (AFAIK) the later is more secure, more capable, and performs better under heavy load.

Can anyone point me some?

Re:Why use IIS?

Here are the top 10 reasons people choose IIS over Apache:

10. Because they don't know what they are doing.
9. Because their customers don't know what they're doing.
8. Because they are partnered with MS.
7. Because they are racist against Native Americans.
6. Because they get some orgasmic thrill from spending money on slower, inferior products and services.
5. Because the same reason they use Hotmail over Gmail.
6. Because they are really using Apache... but configure it to report itself as IIS to confuse attackers.
5. Because they are originally from another dimension where IIS works better than Apache.
4. Because they were playing a practical joke on their users and then died suddenly.
3. Because they are brainwashed from listening to too many Steve Balmer speeches.
2. Because really all those IIS servers out there are just Microsoft's own servers trying to keep MSN.com running.
1. Because they smoke a lot of crack.

50 million apache powered websites...

...let's slashdot them.

Why is apache so popular?

Not that there is anything particularly horrible about apache, but alot of sites could use something smaller, and less of a memory hog like lighttpd. But yet they use apache anyways "cause we're using linux", as if the only webservers that exist are apache and IIS.

Re:Why is apache so popular?

Because most of the tools we use for web development work and are actively maintained on Apache. mod_php, mod_perl, mod_ruby, etc. Sure you can use these via CGI with any web server, but the in process execution makes them more convenient to use.

Apache has turned into a de-facto standard. People can expect security updates for it, and the large user base insures its longevity. With any major piece of software, there are always better alternatives. But still, people use sendmail, even though we have postfix and qmail. People use bind...

Apache works, is solid, scalable and is supported by many languages and many people. That's why most people use it.

This just in

IIS passes 5 Trillion crashes mark.

Netcraft is so inaccurate

The problem is that I know many system administrators that change their server's response to be Apache even though it's IIS. By the same token I know several Apache servers that respond as IIS and are used as honeypots; their logs are parsed for several known exploits and worms.

People have always mentioned this problem with mining for server usage statistics. What does netcraft do to try and filter out a lot of these false statistics? Is there any thing they can do? Is there any other way to identify a "true" Apache server? I can't check for the existence of php or aspx files because both IIS and Apache support both (aspx via mono).

If you were developing a new statustics mining server for determining service types on the internet, what would you use to identify the "true" Apache/IIS servers?

Make me proud

Numbers like that can make a developer proud.

Or scared, if they know something is wrong. ha ha ha

22 days old?

From TFA:
Posted by wss at October 4, 2005 08:40 AM

Which means that the news is 22 days old. Given that this is a monthly survey, the slashpost seems a tad bit behind the times.

One of us should write a bot that posts a story 21 days after the fact and see if we can beat the masses that happen upon Netcraft and re-print old news.

I'l bet that 49 million of them...

I'll bet that 49 million of them are virtual domains on the same server with names like make-money-fast-heres-how.info investment-secrets-2005.info splog-world.info, etc.

Re:Apache License?

      1. You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License; and

      2. You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files; and

      3. You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works; and

      4. If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or, within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and wherever such third-party notices normally appear. The contents of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and do not modify the License. You may add Your own attribution notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside or as an addendum to the NOTICE text from the Work, provided that such additional attribution notices cannot be construed as modifying the License.


The last clause there is what makes it incompatible with the GPL and what made the OpenBSD folks fork it (they folked before the license change to include this clause). In answer to your question, yes, indeed anyone is free to extend and distribute binary forms of the software without having to hand over source code for their extensions (or even for the code they didn't write).

But here's a question for you. If you're required to give "any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License", does that mean that the extended work has to be under this license? Or does it just mean you have to give the license to them, even though it isn't applicable. What stupid wording. Presumably it means you can't change the license on the software.. but you can apply any license you want on your extensions.. which means you can prohibit the software from being distributed, even though "this license" says you are free to distribute it.

Re:So what your saying is:

No, IIS isn't "growing faster than apache", it has grow faster than apache this month. If you look at other web server surveys (or at that graphic) you'll find different numbers

Re:IIS? Are you sure?

even with apache identifying itself as apache you STILL see requests that are targeting IIS security holes. It seems its easier for attackers to just fire at as many hosts as possible rather than checking them first.

Mod down: unsubstantiated claim

If you instead count only real servers own by the company (dedicated servers) IIS is 4-5 times more used then Apache.

Care to quote the source of this blunt claim? While it is certainly true that many domain-name parking services use Apache, Apache would still lead by a large margin even if those were accounted for.

Re:Apache License?

People who fear non-GPL open source licenses fail to realize this; the fact that Apache hasn't been displaced by a closed-source fork should be proof enough that open source can work even when the license doesn't force people to keep the source open.

The Apache project, and the various BSD projects, work their collective bollocks off to make sure that if anyone tries to create a closed-source fork, they will have a superior open-source alternative.

As much as I admire all that hard work, I simply don't feel confident that I personally could go to such extreme lengths just to prevent code that I wrote for the benefit of all humanity from being locked up. Other people get to exercise their rights because I live up to the obligations incumbent upon me.

All closed-source software by definition abridges two of the Four Freedoms; and many EULAs would seek to abridge one or both of the other two if only they were legally enforceable. I would much prefer to see the Four Freedoms protected by the Law of the Land.

Re:"Is that so"

You do realize IIS can also serve several domains with a single install, right?

Re:IIS? Are you sure?

Like this (http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html [netcraft.com]) : www.windows-sc.necsoft.com 102 1267 1310 1310 BSD/OS Microsoft-IIS/5.0 Running MS IIS on BSD - Duh...

Re:"Is that so"

Um, you are missing the point...IIS can only handle one domain per "real server". Apache can handle 500virtuals and a bowl of cereal to boot. Counting your way, Microsoft would always win due to them creating this "one server / one application" tiered computing mentality that most *nix users have never come to grips with, nor ever wanted to shell out the $$$ for it...

"Sing to me, Goddess, of the wrath of Achilles, Son of Peleus...

Re:IIS? Are you sure?

I have found a company apparently doing exactly this: Initial CityLink.

When you visit the link http://www.city-link.co.uk/track_parcel/track_parc el.asp [city-link.co.uk], the server wants to set a cookie. The name of the cookie is PHPSESSID.