Which is to say that GoDaddy hosts a lot of *parked* domains on IIS.
...which were previously served using Apache. None of these stats will ever be able to convey the usefulness of site content based upon web server software.
...or better yet, analyze each home page, if it has no links to other pages within the same web site assume it is a parked domain (or spam domain) and ignore it.
That's not necessarily a good metric either, as systems built for that amount of traffic are not necessarily indicative of what is suitable for the rest of us. That's sort of the formula 1 versus a regular driving vehicle problem.
It might be a good indication of what the mainstream hosts will be using in a couple of years though. As with your formula one analogy, (a subset of the) technology developed at the extreme high end is commoditised and trickles down.
But a spammer would use Linux instead of IIS because it's cheaper on the large scale, and spammers and scammers go for large scale because their success rate is low per CPU cycle.
Why would spammers care what is cheaper? What they're doing is already highly dubious, so chances are they will have no qualms about using warez and/or hacked servers.
Why would a spammer bother? You know what's cheaper than running their own machines? Using someone else's machine. Most spammers use botnets and such for everything - less likely to get caught, there's so many out there that prices are low and many ISPs don't do egress filtering properly so port 25 outgoing makes life simple.
Which is to say that GoDaddy hosts a lot of *parked* domains on IIS.
Honest question: Why did they switch? I have never understood why anyone would use IIS, and always assumed ISS users were clueless newbies. So why would GoDaddy go to the time and expense of switching? What do they gain?
That's really no reason to move customer domains. As a customer I'd immediately leave a provider, which moved my domains to a new platform without asking me first. Customers that want asp.net should have to choose so on their own. The only way you could suddenly move a lot of sites from one platform to another without breaking something would be if they didn't need any server side scripting in the first place.
It could be done with parked domains. But why would you want to do that (except as a mark
Simple reason really. Microsoft serves static pages faster than Apache and scales better under this scenario. It allows Go Daddy to park more sites on the same host, which then saves them money.
Unfortunately, I have no graphs I can share with you due to confidentiality reasons. You can get Apache to outperform Nginx by configuring Apache to use prefork, then increasing Linux's file descriptors to a much larger setting than default to coincide with the forked processes and the connection limits you wish to handle.
Using processes to serve individual requests seems like a massive waste of resources, and I have a hard time believing this will run faster than a standard threaded worker. Do you have any theory behind why Apache would process requests faster with preform as opposed to worker?
I have searched for optimization guidelines for Apache and I cannot find anyone recommending this setup, except for when compatibility is required.
I suppose that if Apache is used to serve non-static content using a foreign/3rd party
Prefork plus increased file descriptors? You're kidding right? While you can get Apache to match NGinx, it's definitely nowhere that simple. As optimized as Unix fork() is, processes are going to use more resources than threads in this scenario every time. Prefork is the worse MPM you can use when you need performance. Even the Apache manual spells this out.
You'd have *begin* with worker or event MPM, use Apache 2.4 at least, and finely tune for your Application and specific load.
The benefit of NGinx is that you get a highly optimized web server right out of the box. You don't have to mess with the configs and you're almost there.
Technically the Apache team can do the same if they get rid of Prefork and a whole bunch of decades old legacy configuration options. Remove code processing modules from the webserver application space, i.e. get rid of mod_php for php_fpm, etc. All this can be configured now and you'll get that speed and stability, but it's just not done out of the box.
With NGinx it is. The only way to do things is the 'fast' or optimized way.
An IIS webserver has a license cost starting at close to $1,000, add SQL Server (Please don't use SQL EXPRESS to host a website with any traffic you'll be sorry) and you're looking at another $6,000.
Why, then, would I use IIS? Because I have to support Microsoft products or CMS systems that only run there.
My WAG is that MS threw a bunch of money at Godaddy, not directly, you understand, but indirectly.
Furthermore, my conjecture is that MS is prepared to throw this money at Godaddy because Microsoft's share of sites was looking rather sad (3rd place for market share of active sites last month).
A while back Microsoft was paying hosts and registrars with large numbers of domains parked, or $30 / year type, to switch over. I don't know if that program is still active.
IIRC, GoDaddy switched to IIS for these parked domains and a dip in Apache usage appeared, then reversed itself a year or so later... now its repeating.
Seems more like a money-making initiative fromGoDaddy, or a money-losing initiative from MS yet again. What's the chances history will repeat itself once the contract runs out...
Honest answer: Because IIS serves static pages faster than Apache does so they can park more domains on the same hardware. With the amount of domains they park, it's not an insignificant difference.
Apparently you are wrong, IIS beats up the competition; only lighttpd comes close.
In the tests, * IIS used only half the CPU compared to Nginx at bandwidth saturation. * IIS delivered more than double peak throughput * IIS had about half the response time compared to Nginx, under medium load.
In short, IIS appears to be twice as fast compared to Nginx.
Multiple processes is what nginx would need to get the maximum performance out of a the Quad-core machine.
1. It is mentioned that default configuration was used, but the tester was willing to adjust parameters if the server was not taking advantage of the machine.
2. The CPU utilization at bandwidth saturation test should not be impacted, even if Nginx was running on a single core - unless it showed that bandwidth could not be saturated. But bandwidth was saturated with Nginx and cpu utilization was more than double that of lighttpd and IIS.
And he used a different harddisks for Windows than Linux are they of the same type ?
That could be an issue. But the test used a "real, minimalistic page wit
It was a huge M$ marketing stunt at the time. Why the switch because it was profitable to do so. Now the real question is about market share. Should the Go Daddy site plus all the web sites it servers be considered one site in terms of choice of server to in reality more effectively measure choice by people who actually administer web sites. It seems at the very least two sets of statistics should be presented to more accurately show choices made.
If you look at the netcraft graph going back several years, you will often see significant bumps in share either for or against IIS. Several of these are down to MS paying large hosting providers to put their parked sites on IIS for promotional reasons.
They switched because they where paid to do so, because it looks good in marketing. They're in the position to control the webserver for millions of domains, thus Microsoft bribes them to use IIS.
Shanghai - Many people switch to IIS because it CAN be run by low cost newbs. What I don't understand is why corp management consistently sacrifices reliability and scalability and settles for unreliable mediocrity with IIS (and Microsoft). And, in the end pays more for slews of license fees and loss of experience by migrating admins who rather than staying put, roam from company to company for a better deal.
I'm just a bitter old man:) I just witness companies spending millions of dollars supporting inf
GoDaddy IIS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Go have a look at web server market share for active sites, as well as the top million busiest sites, you fucking nitwit.
Re:GoDaddy IIS (Score:5, Informative)
Which is to say that GoDaddy hosts a lot of *parked* domains on IIS.
...which were previously served using Apache. None of these stats will ever be able to convey the usefulness of site content based upon web server software.
Re: (Score:3)
You could look at what the share is among the top N domains, for N=1000 or N=10,000 or whatever, at least as a sanity check.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's not necessarily a good metric either, as systems built for that amount of traffic are not necessarily indicative of what is suitable for the rest of us. That's sort of the formula 1 versus a regular driving vehicle problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
But a spammer would use Linux instead of IIS because it's cheaper on the large scale, and spammers and scammers go for large scale because their success rate is low per CPU cycle.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would spammers care what is cheaper?
What they're doing is already highly dubious, so chances are they will have no qualms about using warez and/or hacked servers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, IIS does nothing much better than Apache?
Re: (Score:3)
Which is to say that GoDaddy hosts a lot of *parked* domains on IIS.
Honest question: Why did they switch? I have never understood why anyone would use IIS, and always assumed ISS users were clueless newbies. So why would GoDaddy go to the time and expense of switching? What do they gain?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Simple: asp.net. Plenty of half assed coders out there can, with little effort, build a website using Visual Basic or C#.
Re: (Score:2)
That's really no reason to move customer domains. As a customer I'd immediately leave a provider, which moved my domains to a new platform without asking me first. Customers that want asp.net should have to choose so on their own. The only way you could suddenly move a lot of sites from one platform to another without breaking something would be if they didn't need any server side scripting in the first place.
It could be done with parked domains. But why would you want to do that (except as a mark
Re: (Score:3)
Simple reason really. Microsoft serves static pages faster than Apache and scales better under this scenario. It allows Go Daddy to park more sites on the same host, which then saves them money.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Nginx serves static pages faster than Apache or MS. Try again.
http://www.webperformance.com/load-testing/blog/2011/11/what-is-the-fastest-webserver/ [webperformance.com]
IIS outperforming Nginx by a factor two. Your turn to "try again".
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, I have no graphs I can share with you due to confidentiality reasons. You can get Apache to outperform Nginx by configuring Apache to use prefork, then increasing Linux's file descriptors to a much larger setting than default to coincide with the forked processes and the connection limits you wish to handle.
Using processes to serve individual requests seems like a massive waste of resources, and I have a hard time believing this will run faster than a standard threaded worker. Do you have any theory behind why Apache would process requests faster with preform as opposed to worker?
I have searched for optimization guidelines for Apache and I cannot find anyone recommending this setup, except for when compatibility is required.
I suppose that if Apache is used to serve non-static content using a foreign/3rd party
Prefork is the worse MPM for performance (Score:4, Interesting)
Prefork plus increased file descriptors? You're kidding right? While you can get Apache to match NGinx, it's definitely nowhere that simple. As optimized as Unix fork() is, processes are going to use more resources than threads in this scenario every time. Prefork is the worse MPM you can use when you need performance. Even the Apache manual spells this out.
You'd have *begin* with worker or event MPM, use Apache 2.4 at least, and finely tune for your Application and specific load.
The benefit of NGinx is that you get a highly optimized web server right out of the box. You don't have to mess with the configs and you're almost there.
Technically the Apache team can do the same if they get rid of Prefork and a whole bunch of decades old legacy configuration options. Remove code processing modules from the webserver application space, i.e. get rid of mod_php for php_fpm, etc. All this can be configured now and you'll get that speed and stability, but it's just not done out of the box.
With NGinx it is. The only way to do things is the 'fast' or optimized way.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
An Apache webserver has a license cost of ZERO.
An IIS webserver has a license cost starting at close to $1,000, add SQL Server (Please don't use SQL EXPRESS to host a website with any traffic you'll be sorry) and you're looking at another $6,000.
Why, then, would I use IIS? Because I have to support Microsoft products or CMS systems that only run there.
DUH!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:GoDaddy IIS (Score:4)
Simple: asp.net. Plenty of half assed coders out there can, with little effort, build a website using Visual Basic or C#.
Sounds like a great accomplishment and major win for Microsoft.
Re: (Score:3)
Your half-assed crap code. Our passion.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple: asp.net. Plenty of half assed coders out there can, with little effort, build a website using Visual Basic or C#.
Sounds like a great accomplishment and major win for Microsoft.
Ever heard of PHP?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how you can say this when the primary language for dynamic sites run by Apache is PHP, which is mountains of shit worse than C#.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My WAG is that MS threw a bunch of money at Godaddy, not directly, you understand, but indirectly.
Furthermore, my conjecture is that MS is prepared to throw this money at Godaddy because Microsoft's share of sites was looking rather sad (3rd place for market share of active sites last month).
Microsoft was paying large hosts to switch $10 sit (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know if that program is still active.
Re:Microsoft was paying large hosts to switch $10 (Score:5, Interesting)
IIRC, GoDaddy switched to IIS for these parked domains and a dip in Apache usage appeared, then reversed itself a year or so later... now its repeating.
Seems more like a money-making initiative fromGoDaddy, or a money-losing initiative from MS yet again. What's the chances history will repeat itself once the contract runs out...
Re: (Score:2)
Honest answer: Because IIS serves static pages faster than Apache does so they can park more domains on the same hardware. With the amount of domains they park, it's not an insignificant difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
As said earlier: Nginx is faster than both.
Citation needed.
I could only find this: http://www.webperformance.com/load-testing/blog/2011/11/what-is-the-fastest-webserver/ [webperformance.com]
Apparently you are wrong, IIS beats up the competition; only lighttpd comes close.
In the tests,
* IIS used only half the CPU compared to Nginx at bandwidth saturation.
* IIS delivered more than double peak throughput
* IIS had about half the response time compared to Nginx, under medium load.
In short, IIS appears to be twice as fast compared to Nginx.
What benchmarks are you thinking of
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how he configured nginx.
Multiple processes is what nginx would need to get the maximum performance out of a the Quad-core machine.
And he used a different harddisks for Windows than Linux are they of the same type ?
Those are some of the things that come to mind first.
Re: (Score:2)
Multiple processes is what nginx would need to get the maximum performance out of a the Quad-core machine.
1. It is mentioned that default configuration was used, but the tester was willing to adjust parameters if the server was not taking advantage of the machine.
2. The CPU utilization at bandwidth saturation test should not be impacted, even if Nginx was running on a single core - unless it showed that bandwidth could not be saturated. But bandwidth was saturated with Nginx and cpu utilization was more than double that of lighttpd and IIS.
And he used a different harddisks for Windows than Linux are they of the same type ?
That could be an issue. But the test used a "real, minimalistic page wit
Re: (Score:1)
As said earlier: Nginx is faster than both.
nope. [webperformance.com]. IIS almost 2x faster than Nginx when serving static content.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a huge M$ marketing stunt at the time. Why the switch because it was profitable to do so. Now the real question is about market share. Should the Go Daddy site plus all the web sites it servers be considered one site in terms of choice of server to in reality more effectively measure choice by people who actually administer web sites. It seems at the very least two sets of statistics should be presented to more accurately show choices made.
Re: (Score:2)
They switched because your assumptions are wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
If you look at the netcraft graph going back several years, you will often see significant bumps in share either for or against IIS. Several of these are down to MS paying large hosting providers to put their parked sites on IIS for promotional reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
They switched because they where paid to do so, because it looks good in marketing. They're in the position to control the webserver for millions of domains, thus Microsoft bribes them to use IIS.
Re: (Score:1)
Shanghai - Many people switch to IIS because it CAN be run by low cost newbs. What I don't understand is why corp management consistently sacrifices reliability and scalability and settles for unreliable mediocrity with IIS (and Microsoft). And, in the end pays more for slews of license fees and loss of experience by migrating admins who rather than staying put, roam from company to company for a better deal.
I'm just a bitter old man :) I just witness companies spending millions of dollars supporting inf