Slashdot Mirror

Try here

Ok, some of you people really have got to get off of this Java app servers over everything else kick. Lots of clueless people seem to be implying "Well, some sites use lowly scripts to run their sites but we're special. We need JAVA for our super-duper, highly-scalable, object-oriented, five-tier, dynamic xml-parsed 'solution'." Grow up. Many of the most trafficked sites use Perl, PHP, Python, Tcl, and sometimes C. Is your site going to be more popular than any of these?:
www.deja.com
www.imdb.com
www.hotmail.com
www.yahoo.com
www.photo.net
www.digitalcity.com
www.villagevoice.com
www.metacrawler.com
slashdot.org

Telnet to port 80 on these sites or use Netcraft's "What's that server running?" feature to see what these guys are using if you don't believe me.

Don't believe the hype and marketing around application servers. They are for corporate IT departments who don't know better and want to appear sophisticated (and I say this because I work in said clueless environment). Don't believe your hack CS205 professor who pimps OO as the end-all be-all of programming. OO is nice but it's not a panacea for bad design. You can program just as brainlessly with Java as you can with Perl. And for those of you who bitch about Perl's syntax. What exactly is it about Perl that bug's you? Lack of typecasting? Gosh, "use strict;" is hard to type. Messy syntax? Yes, you can write ugly code with Perl but the same can be said for any language. Perl is just more lenient than most. I can't understand people who don't appreciate leniency in a language when you are trying to release a dynamic functional site in a couple of weeks. Sure, we'd all like to make pretty programs at work but sometimes we need them to get out there ASAP and with as little overhead as possible (those of you who can't appreciate this are still in school and haven't dealt with competitive deadlines or you just don't see what a competitive advantage being first and scalable on the web gives you).

Name one commercial app server that scales as well as the open-source combos. Kiva server was a complete piece of doo-doo. Oracle Application Server? Yeah, right, it was so good that Oracle stopped using it for their own site. Some will argue that app servers are necessary because they support transactions, failovers, etc. You can encapsulate most of this in the db without burdening your web developers. If you really need these features then you should consider looking at your design again and seeing if you can simplify it. In my opinion they are not necessary for 99% of the problems you'll run into.

For people who would like another opinion on why commercial app servers suck read this:
www.photo.net/wtr/application-ser vers.html

For those who'd like to read about one possible open-source solution (the same one that slashdot uses and my personal favorite):
perl.apache.org/stories/

Other good environments:
www.php.net
java.apache.org
www.aolserver.com
www.python.org

For those of you who push Java app servers over everything else: why don't you write down a list popular sites (your intranet or school projects don't count) which are using them and give examples of the hardware necessary to keep it going. I'm excited about the Apache Java project (look at above link) but everything else is just marketrdroid talk until there are results.

Ok, some of you people really have got to get off of this Java app servers over everything else kick. Lots of clueless people seem to be implying "Well, some sites use lowly scripts to run their sites but we're special. We need JAVA for our super-duper, highly-scalable, object-oriented, five-tier, dynamic xml-parsed 'solution'." Grow up. Many of the most trafficked sites use Perl, PHP, Python, Tcl, and sometimes C. Is your site going to be more popular than any of these?:
www.deja.com
www.imdb.com
www.hotmail.com
www.yahoo.com
www.photo.net
www.digitalcity.com
www.villagevoice.com
www.metacrawler.com
slashdot.org

Telnet to port 80 on these sites or use Netcraft's "What's that server running?" feature to see what these guys are using if you don't believe me.

Don't believe the hype and marketing around application servers. They are for corporate IT departments who don't know better and want to appear sophisticated (and I say this because I work in said clueless environment). Don't believe your hack CS205 professor who pimps OO as the end-all be-all of programming. OO is nice but it's not a panacea for bad design. You can program just as brainlessly with Java as you can with Perl. And for those of you who bitch about Perl's syntax. What exactly is it about Perl that bug's you? Lack of typecasting? Gosh, "use strict;" is hard to type. Messy syntax? Yes, you can write ugly code with Perl but the same can be said for any language. Perl is just more lenient than most. I can't understand people who don't appreciate leniency in a language when you are trying to release a dynamic functional site in a couple of weeks. Sure, we'd all like to make pretty programs at work but sometimes we need them to get out there ASAP and with as little overhead as possible (those of you who can't appreciate this are still in school and haven't dealt with competitive deadlines or you just don't see what a competitive advantage being first and scalable on the web gives you).

Name one commercial app server that scales as well as the open-source combos. Kiva server was a complete piece of doo-doo. Oracle Application Server? Yeah, right, it was so good that Oracle stopped using it for their own site. Some will argue that app servers are necessary because they support transactions, failovers, etc. You can encapsulate most of this in the db without burdening your web developers. If you really need these features then you should consider looking at your design again and seeing if you can simplify it. In my opinion they are not necessary for 99% of the problems you'll run into.

For people who would like another opinion on why commercial app servers suck read this:
www.photo.net/wtr/application-ser vers.html

For those who'd like to read about one possible open-source solution (the same one that slashdot uses and my personal favorite):
perl.apache.org/stories/

Other good environments:
www.php.net
java.apache.org
www.aolserver.com
www.python.org

For those of you who push Java app servers over everything else: why don't you write down a list popular sites (your intranet or school projects don't count) which are using them and give examples of the hardware necessary to keep it going. I'm excited about the Apache Java project (look at above link) but everything else is just marketrdroid talk until there are results.

Java Server Pages (JSP) has been recommended in a few posts. Although JSP has some good things going for it -- open specification vs. proprietary markup, easy integration with Java objects, Beans, standard and 3rd party Java APIs -- it also has some serious problems. The main problem is that JSP is a clone of ASP a 3(?) year old technology.

JSP, ASP, and Cold Fusion, they're all the same model. Your content is managed in files. Those same files also manage your code. I'm aware each platform has facilities for marshalling external objects. And I'll even pretend that everyone in your orginization is going to be good and code business rules in seperate objects. Even then, you're still mixing presentation with logic. Worse, you're managing content with files, unless you have a handfull of master, super dynamic templates that don't even dictate presentation. But then, you're implementing a content management engine that could be more easily written as a Java Servlet or your own app server.

There are some alternatives to using middle-webbish (ASP, JSP, CFML) for dynamic content:

A group at java.apache.org are working on the Server Pages Foundation Classes. One of the problems they address is the loose coupling between "templates" when you're developing a workflow that takes place accross many screens (like account creation, shopping cart, etc.).

Also at java.apache.org is Cocoon, a Java Servlet (or standalone Java app) that use XML and XTL (XSL:T) to serve pages where content is seperate from presentation.

More on the XML front -- which is, IMO, the current best approach to develop highly dynamic, content driven sites -- IBM Alphaworks has a lot of XML tools available. The two I've found the most usefull are xml4j and lotus XSL. The source is available for both, but I haven't reviewed the licenses. No matter, other OS XML projects -- like Cocoon --- are capable of utilizing the commercial APIs by defining their own API, then implementing wrappers around IBM's classes.

And there's many more...these are just the ones I know enough about to comment on. The reality is, middle webbish is proving insufficient. This has produced an area bubbling with ideas and new approaches to developing and managing dynamic Web sites.

ASP is 3 years old. It and it's clones have enabled the Web to grow, but those technologies are bursting at the seams. XML is new, perhaps too new, and it's debatable if XTL (XSL:T) will catch on. But one thing is certain to me: XML is where it's at.

Java Server Pages (JSP) has been recommended in a few posts. Although JSP has some good things going for it -- open specification vs. proprietary markup, easy integration with Java objects, Beans, standard and 3rd party Java APIs -- it also has some serious problems. The main problem is that JSP is a clone of ASP a 3(?) year old technology.

JSP, ASP, and Cold Fusion, they're all the same model. Your content is managed in files. Those same files also manage your code. I'm aware each platform has facilities for marshalling external objects. And I'll even pretend that everyone in your orginization is going to be good and code business rules in seperate objects. Even then, you're still mixing presentation with logic. Worse, you're managing content with files, unless you have a handfull of master, super dynamic templates that don't even dictate presentation. But then, you're implementing a content management engine that could be more easily written as a Java Servlet or your own app server.

There are some alternatives to using middle-webbish (ASP, JSP, CFML) for dynamic content:

A group at java.apache.org are working on the Server Pages Foundation Classes. One of the problems they address is the loose coupling between "templates" when you're developing a workflow that takes place accross many screens (like account creation, shopping cart, etc.).

Also at java.apache.org is Cocoon, a Java Servlet (or standalone Java app) that use XML and XTL (XSL:T) to serve pages where content is seperate from presentation.

More on the XML front -- which is, IMO, the current best approach to develop highly dynamic, content driven sites -- IBM Alphaworks has a lot of XML tools available. The two I've found the most usefull are xml4j and lotus XSL. The source is available for both, but I haven't reviewed the licenses. No matter, other OS XML projects -- like Cocoon --- are capable of utilizing the commercial APIs by defining their own API, then implementing wrappers around IBM's classes.

And there's many more...these are just the ones I know enough about to comment on. The reality is, middle webbish is proving insufficient. This has produced an area bubbling with ideas and new approaches to developing and managing dynamic Web sites.

ASP is 3 years old. It and it's clones have enabled the Web to grow, but those technologies are bursting at the seams. XML is new, perhaps too new, and it's debatable if XTL (XSL:T) will catch on. But one thing is certain to me: XML is where it's at.

There are two Apache/Java integration projects that I know about; one was already mentioned, the Jakarta project (jakarta.apache.org), "dedicated to providing a high quality, world class 100% Pure Java Servlet and JavaServer Pages implementation", and the Java Apache project (java.apache.org), which has a JVM built in to the Apache daemon, and inlcudes JSSI and full servlet support.

Though I haven't personally used either of these creations, I do know people who have had great success with the Java Apache modules. This project includes mod_java (similar in function to mod_perl or mod_php), client applications, and a document publishing framework as well as server extensions, so for a large scale solution, this may be worth checking out.

Also, I believe, the Java Apache project is more mature than the Jakarta project (although I may be mistaken about this).

There are two Apache/Java integration projects that I know about; one was already mentioned, the Jakarta project (jakarta.apache.org), "dedicated to providing a high quality, world class 100% Pure Java Servlet and JavaServer Pages implementation", and the Java Apache project (java.apache.org), which has a JVM built in to the Apache daemon, and inlcudes JSSI and full servlet support.

Though I haven't personally used either of these creations, I do know people who have had great success with the Java Apache modules. This project includes mod_java (similar in function to mod_perl or mod_php), client applications, and a document publishing framework as well as server extensions, so for a large scale solution, this may be worth checking out.

Also, I believe, the Java Apache project is more mature than the Jakarta project (although I may be mistaken about this).

There are two Apache/Java integration projects that I know about; one was already mentioned, the Jakarta project (jakarta.apache.org), "dedicated to providing a high quality, world class 100% Pure Java Servlet and JavaServer Pages implementation", and the Java Apache project (java.apache.org), which has a JVM built in to the Apache daemon, and inlcudes JSSI and full servlet support.

Though I haven't personally used either of these creations, I do know people who have had great success with the Java Apache modules. This project includes mod_java (similar in function to mod_perl or mod_php), client applications, and a document publishing framework as well as server extensions, so for a large scale solution, this may be worth checking out.

Also, I believe, the Java Apache project is more mature than the Jakarta project (although I may be mistaken about this).

There are two Apache/Java integration projects that I know about; one was already mentioned, the Jakarta project (jakarta.apache.org), "dedicated to providing a high quality, world class 100% Pure Java Servlet and JavaServer Pages implementation", and the Java Apache project (java.apache.org), which has a JVM built in to the Apache daemon, and inlcudes JSSI and full servlet support.

Though I haven't personally used either of these creations, I do know people who have had great success with the Java Apache modules. This project includes mod_java (similar in function to mod_perl or mod_php), client applications, and a document publishing framework as well as server extensions, so for a large scale solution, this may be worth checking out.

Also, I believe, the Java Apache project is more mature than the Jakarta project (although I may be mistaken about this).

There are two Apache/Java integration projects that I know about; one was already mentioned, the Jakarta project (jakarta.apache.org), "dedicated to providing a high quality, world class 100% Pure Java Servlet and JavaServer Pages implementation", and the Java Apache project (java.apache.org), which has a JVM built in to the Apache daemon, and inlcudes JSSI and full servlet support.

Though I haven't personally used either of these creations, I do know people who have had great success with the Java Apache modules. This project includes mod_java (similar in function to mod_perl or mod_php), client applications, and a document publishing framework as well as server extensions, so for a large scale solution, this may be worth checking out.

Also, I believe, the Java Apache project is more mature than the Jakarta project (although I may be mistaken about this).

There are two Apache/Java integration projects that I know about; one was already mentioned, the Jakarta project (jakarta.apache.org), "dedicated to providing a high quality, world class 100% Pure Java Servlet and JavaServer Pages implementation", and the Java Apache project (java.apache.org), which has a JVM built in to the Apache daemon, and inlcudes JSSI and full servlet support.

Though I haven't personally used either of these creations, I do know people who have had great success with the Java Apache modules. This project includes mod_java (similar in function to mod_perl or mod_php), client applications, and a document publishing framework as well as server extensions, so for a large scale solution, this may be worth checking out.

Also, I believe, the Java Apache project is more mature than the Jakarta project (although I may be mistaken about this).

There are two Apache/Java integration projects that I know about; one was already mentioned, the Jakarta project (jakarta.apache.org), "dedicated to providing a high quality, world class 100% Pure Java Servlet and JavaServer Pages implementation", and the Java Apache project (java.apache.org), which has a JVM built in to the Apache daemon, and inlcudes JSSI and full servlet support.

Though I haven't personally used either of these creations, I do know people who have had great success with the Java Apache modules. This project includes mod_java (similar in function to mod_perl or mod_php), client applications, and a document publishing framework as well as server extensions, so for a large scale solution, this may be worth checking out.

Also, I believe, the Java Apache project is more mature than the Jakarta project (although I may be mistaken about this).

For more information, go to the Jakarta web site.

Actually this is not true, only individuals can be members, and if you follow the link to the particular individuals home page, it claim that he works for c2net. Maybe it is a joke.

Of course, eventually someone will not like the direction that the Apache group is going and will create a new distribution (ala Linux) with a different aim.

I don't think that this will actually affect Apache development in any way, the code will remain under the BSD license.

Rather, the ASF was obviously formed to create a supporting organization for Apache and its sister projects (mod_perl, PHP, ...)

So in effect it is much like the Free Software Foundation and Software in the Public Interest. It just hasn't got its nonprofit status yet.

--

Apache for NT IS stable. It may not be as stable as Apache for Linux or Solaris, but how would you know if it was, on NT?

It's not Linux either! It's the same OS which runs Yahoo, MP3.com, and even the Apache.org site. Look at Apache's Server status. Their server is pumping 142.5k/sec on AVERAGE! Too bad Slashdot doesn't want users to see their stats.

I think they would have difficulty trying to get everyone to use just Linux, in companies and deperatments where they currently have no Linux installations, and hence so sys-admin. This is for enterprise level stuff, so this is important.

At the moment, all they seem definate about is adding Linux support, to their current list. Migrating to Linux-only seems more like wishful thinking in the short/medium term.

(gripe mode on) If you're going to post stories like this, why couldn't you post one I submitted the other day - Sun licensing their JavaServer Pages/servlet source code to the Apache Group, and letting Apache distribute that source code under the Apache license. see the Jakarta home page and this JavaWorld article(grip mode off)

Use shadow passwords. That way, a malicious web writer can't grab the encrypted passwords and try to break them. It's easy: "pwconv" is the (only) command to run if your system is relatively modern (this may be somewhat specific to the Linux implementation of the shadow password system?).

If you need to protect the users from each other, you might consider:

• Using Apache's suexec system. However, some people say that the system is so complex that there is risk of actually decreasing security due to misunderstandings; your milage may vary.
• If you use PHP, consider running it in 'safe mode'

Some general purpose Linux/unix related security links:

• The Security-HOWTO
• Kurt Seifried's Linux Administrators Security Guide (LASG)
• The IPCHAINS-HOWTO (packet filtering)
• The Firewall-HOWTO (rather out-dated)
• The World Wide Web Security FAQ

Finally: Keep your system up-to-date with the latest official patches. Consider joining the BugTraq mailing list.

I did unleash a little fury on IIS, didn't I. I didn't mean to turn this thread into IIS bashing. I've just had some really bad experiences with IIS. It's way too integrated into the operating system for my taste. (Anytime that you are using the operating system's user database to authentiate web users, something is just plain wrong.) And the fact that the operating system that it is integrated into is NT just makes it worse. It's just not stable, manageable, or scalable enough.

Your claim that IIS is the fastest webserver is pure flamebait. If you would like to point me to a URL, I'd be happy to look at it. But, I'll guarantee that the fastest webserver isn't any webserver running on NT. Apache, Zeus, and Netscape can all crush IIS, simply by the fact that they can run on high-end UNIX machines with a dozen or more processors.

It doesn't really matter anyway though. I doubt that anyone makes their choice of web servers based on performance tests anyway. The difference in performance is small enough that features, managability, and stability are going to be decision points.

For those of you who brought up PHP's effect on the webserver comparisons, I concede that PHP may be significant development. To be honest, I don't know enough of the details about PHP to comment on its strengths and weaknesses. I'm a servlet kind of guy myself, so I haven't checked it out. But it does seem to be a simpler solution than mod_perl. (Not that Perl isn't cool.) At first look, it just looked like another server-side scripting language to me. Which is cool in it's own right since it's open source. But people tell me that it rocks.

By the way, since I didn't explicitly say it before: my opinions are mine, not Netscape's. I don't work on the development team for Enterprise server, and am not a professional webmaster either, so my opinion probably isn't any good anyway.

This study seems to say that apache+linux can deliver 2291 static pages/sec on PII350 and iis 4.0 + NT4SP4 only about 17% of that amount.

That may be, but at some point the overhead of starting a new process for every request will kill you anyway. Under Apache you can use PHP or mod_perl. With these there is no need to fork or compile a complete perl program for every request.

tunelinux seems a bit sparse on content. It seems more like a template for a new site, than a ready to launch site. The links I followed all seemed to point to simple descriptions of the various daemons and architectures. They could have seeded it with at least the Apache Performance notes or the more specific OS performance notes already published on the main Apache site. Not to mention the fact that they could have perused the contents of the many howtos listed at Linuxberg among many other places. It looks like a good starting point though, and I'm sure it will become a useful resource once more content is provided. It is a nice design, but "Content is King."

tunelinux seems a bit sparse on content. It seems more like a template for a new site, than a ready to launch site. The links I followed all seemed to point to simple descriptions of the various daemons and architectures. They could have seeded it with at least the Apache Performance notes or the more specific OS performance notes already published on the main Apache site. Not to mention the fact that they could have perused the contents of the many howtos listed at Linuxberg among many other places. It looks like a good starting point though, and I'm sure it will become a useful resource once more content is provided. It is a nice design, but "Content is King."

tunelinux seems a bit sparse on content. It seems more like a template for a new site, than a ready to launch site. The links I followed all seemed to point to simple descriptions of the various daemons and architectures. They could have seeded it with at least the Apache Performance notes or the more specific OS performance notes already published on the main Apache site. Not to mention the fact that they could have perused the contents of the many howtos listed at Linuxberg among many other places. It looks like a good starting point though, and I'm sure it will become a useful resource once more content is provided. It is a nice design, but "Content is King."

You silly doof! Don't let your expensive mod_perl+mysql processes sit there pushing bytes down 28.8 & 56K pipes. Use squid in reverse proxy mode to buffer the output of mod_perl and then let squid, which has extremely cheap threads, twiddle its thumbs waiting for the client to receive.

This is all well documented in recent discussions on mod_perl@apache.org. See also the mod_perl guide and the mod_perl mailing list archives.

If you have trouble getting mod_jserv built and
running, take a look at Ari Halberstadt's great
guide to Using Apache-Jserv. It can save you time and frustration.

You could also hire him. (heheheh)

Finally, for Apache 1.3.4 and 1.3.6, save yourself some trouble by symlinking {APACHE_INSTALL}/bin to {APACHE_INSTALL}/sbin.

title says it all. GnuJSP for Apache-Jserv is at 0.99, the only thing left is for Sun to finalize the specification.

Oh, and did I mention Cocoon? Stefano's "XSP" idea (XML Server Pages) is probably the direction where JSP is headed anyhow.

If you're a wizard then duh, it won't help you. In that case head on over to the cocoon website and think about contributing to the project. Show everyone what a stud you are and work with some really neat material at the same time.

If you're a wizard then duh, it won't help you. In that case head on over to the cocoon website and think about contributing to the project. Show everyone what a stud you are and work with some really neat material at the same time.

1. Be worried.
2. Linux is popular.
3. Industry bigwigs want to try.
4. Gates is reputable in the IT community.
5. He says that Linux is only good for "Small apps and spreadsheets.
6. Coincidentally, this is what Linux is worst at -- not that the apps are bad but that is where it is weakest, and does not pay homage to open source server successes, like Apache.
7. The industry pundits look at Linux apps and are disappointed.
8. They leave Linux without checking the rest or waiting for desk apps to mature.

Gates is not stupid.

1. Be worried.
2. Linux is popular.
3. Industry bigwigs want to try.
4. Gates is reputable in the IT community.
5. He says that Linux is only good for "Small apps and spreadsheets.
6. Coincidentally, this is what Linux is worst at -- not that the apps are bad but that is where it is weakest, and does not pay homage to open source server successes, like Apache.
7. The industry pundits look at Linux apps and are disappointed.
8. They leave Linux without checking the rest or waiting for desk apps to mature.

Gates is not stupid.

1. Be worried.
2. Linux is popular.
3. Industry bigwigs want to try.
4. Gates is reputable in the IT community.
5. He says that Linux is only good for "Small apps and spreadsheets.
6. Coincidentally, this is what Linux is worst at -- not that the apps are bad but that is where it is weakest, and does not pay homage to open source server successes, like Apache.
7. The industry pundits look at Linux apps and are disappointed.
8. They leave Linux without checking the rest or waiting for desk apps to mature.

Gates is not stupid.

>Under heavier loads, NT will crash :)
Thats another point, _will_ it crash, are there hard facts?
It should be simple, combine sql and iis for dynamic web-pages and fire up a hell of clients till it smokes. Why haven't I seen someone doing this tests.
Is it true that under heavy loads the NT-"console" will become slow as hell and nearly freeze? Someone pointed out that this has something to do with the kernel scheduling...

Back to the numbers, I actually have seen some, but they wouldn't be considered as hard facts from everyone due to their origin: http://perl.apache.org/bench.txt.

claim superior performance by offering a comparison between a version of a product that has been tuned for performce and a version that has not.

thanks Apple -- once again you're living up to those standards that we've all come to expect from you.

Read the full text from the Apache Web site about Performance

here's a quick quote from the paper:
===================================

Apache Performance Notes

Author: Dean Gaudet Introduction

Apache is a general webserver, which is designed to be correct first, and fast second. Even so, it's performance is quite satisfactory. Most sites have less than 10Mbits of outgoing bandwidth, which Apache can fill using only a low end Pentium-based webserver. In practice sites with more bandwidth require more than one machine to fill the bandwidth due to other constraints (such as CGI or database transaction overhead). For these reasons the development focus has been mostly on correctness and configurability.

Unfortunately many folks overlook these facts and cite raw performance numbers as if they are some indication of the quality of a web server product. There is a bare minimum performance that is acceptable, beyond that extra speed only caters to a much smaller segment of the market. But in order to avoid this hurdle to the acceptance of Apache in some markets, effort was put into Apache 1.3 to bring performance up to a point where the difference with other high-end webservers is minimal.

Finally there are the folks who just plain want to see how fast something can go. The author falls into this category. The rest of this document is dedicated to these folks who want to squeeze every last bit of performance out of Apache's current model, and want to understand why it does some things which slow it down.

Note that this is tailored towards Apache 1.3 on Unix. Some of it applies to Apache on NT. Apache on NT has not been tuned for performance yet, in fact it probably performs very poorly because NT performance requires a different programming model.

It's a LOT more than that. See

http://perl.apache.org/

IIS on NT can be faster than Apache on *nix under certain unrealistic circumstances, but not under anything you'd call "realistic conditions".

With a fairly high-powered box (dual P-Pro and up) that is not heavily loaded, that only servers static files and never CGIs, database lookups, SSIs or any other dynamic content then yes, IIS is a bit faster. But as Apache Performance Tuning says,

Most sites have less than 10Mbits of outgoing bandwidth, which Apache can fill using only a low end Pentium-based webserver. In practice sites with more bandwidth require more than one machine to fill the bandwidth due to other constraints (such as CGI or database transaction overhead).

If you add anything like CGI, mod_perl, PHP, SSI or whatever, Apache quickly takes the lead. I can offer a rough performance comparison between Apache + PHP + MySQL on FreeBSD and IIS + Cold Fusion + Access on WinNT. The former was maxing out a K6/2-350 with 256Mb RAM at 200,000 page views per day. The latter was maxing out identical hardware at under 5,000 page views per day. Admittedly they weren't identical sites (actually the Apache site had much more complex db work). More importantly, to compare IIS with Apache accurately we should have had them both connecting to a database on a separate machine (and not use Access!), but nonetheless it makes clear that the IIS on NT option is technically less preferable.