Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Netcraft Web Server Stats Challenged

Posted by simoniker on from the he-said-she-said dept.

kolchak writes "An article in The Age has an interesting analysis of the Netcraft Web Server Usage Reports. According to Port80 Software, Netcraft's surveys are biased towards domain name parkers and very small web sites, not taking into account how popular a site may be - there's some interesting results in the competing Port80 survey." However, it should be pointed out that Port80 "develops software products to enhance the security, performance and user experience of Microsoft's Internet Information Services (IIS) Web server."

3 of 461 comments (clear)

  1. Problems with Apache vs. IIS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Apache fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Apache box (a P4 2.4 w/1024 Megs of RAM, on an Qwest OC3) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one directory on the hard drive to another user. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4/IIS 4 (On a dual T1, no less!), which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Apache box, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
    In addition, during this file transfer, PHP will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even mod_perl is straining to keep up as I type this.

    I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Apache machines, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Apache box that has run faster than its Windows counterpart, despite the Apache machines faster chip architecture. My 486/66 cable modem router with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 2400 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that Apache is a "superior" server.

    Apache addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Apache over other faster, cheaper, more stable httpd daemons.

  2. A full grown stallion's cock, when fully erect, wi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    A full grown stallion's cock, when fully erect, will measure some two to three feet long

  3. Re:Corporate Web Servers by ryanw · · Score: -1, Troll
    And yes, Linux is starting to make inroads, but not because it is now expensive but because all costs have been more closely studied over the last few years.

    Costs are what is driving Linux into the server market, but the funny thing it's not because it's been 'closely studied over the past few years'. Corporate America thinks they're getting the POWER OF A UNIX BOX, for the price of an NT BOX. This is crazy talk. If you follow the costs of running linux in an environment over running any other MAJOR Unix (ie. Solaris, AIX, or HP-UX to mention a few) you will see the sysadmins slaving to keep the servers patched. A regular linux distribution has more patches out a month than Windows NT, Windows 2000, AIX 4.3.3, AIX 5.1, Solaris 2.6, Solaris 2.7, and Solaris 8 ALL COMBINED. AND in the end, I'm sorry, but our CORPORATE tests have proved linux on x86 not able to handle loads of much lesser Mhz RISC boxes.

    As a hobbiest I love linux. I hardly patch my boxs and they run fine all the time. I know it's dangerous, but I don't have anything critical on them. If it gets hacked, I reload it. The markets you're referring to cannot handle not being kept up with the system patches.