Apache - Windows vs Linux
Gregory_Hill at tni.com
Wed Jan 25 11:24:32 MST 2006
> On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 11:12 -0700, Gregory Hill wrote:
> > All kidding aside, IIS serves images much faster than Apache does,
> > the tests we did when I was working at Navitaire are indicative.
> Apache has never claimed to be the fastest server on the block.
> of its design, I wouldn't be surprised to hear IIS is consistently
> faster. Apache, on the other hand, is consistently more secure and
> robust. I'll gladly trade a few cycles for superior uptime.
I agree on the security aspect, which is why I use apache. The airline
that was using the software, however, was more worried about performance
since their servers were simply running out of memory under load.
> > Now, where's my flame-retarded suit...
> Saying that lighttpd is faster should not be a reason to worry about
> (reasonable) flames. Because of its design, lighttpd is much lighter
> weight and therefore faster. In balance, lighttpd is much less
Yeah, I know, I made the flame comment in regards to saying that IIS is
actually decent at something, which is generally considered heresy among
Linux folks that I've known in the past.
More information about the PLUG