Slashdot Mirror
IIS 7.0 Learns a Few Tricks from Apache
An anonymous reader writes "According to BetaNews, Microsoft is learning a few tricks from Apache for the next release of IIS, version 7.0. Specifically, the IIS feature set has been broken down into modules to reduce overhead. Modules can be changed on the fly, without restarting the Web server. Also, the IIS metabase has been completely dropped in favor of easily editable XML configuration files. Each Web application can have its own config file that overrides the system-wide configuration."
Specifically, the IIS feature set has been broken down into modules to reduce overhead. Modules can be changed on the fly, without restarting the Web server.
I am shocked that it has taken this long to implement these features. Come on now. The rest of the industry has known that this increases stability, eases management and reduced computational overhead for years. Why is it do they think that an eight year old Linux box running Apache can serve up such huge volume versus a latest and greatest IIS server? Also, "simple configuration. IIS 7.0 does away with complicated the "Metabase" and replaces it with XML configuration files, Well, yeah! The fact that they are even talking about doing this rather than simply implementing the feature and then talking about it troubles me though. For myself, I am not running anything sophisticated for the sites I manage but I want simplicity of management and therefore went with standard OSX hosting systems. For heavier lifting, an OS X server system for our scientific databases is not quite as fast as Linux based solutions for some data types, but it is certainly easier to manage than Linux or IIS. If Microsoft wants me to switch, they had better come out with something truly special rather than simply aping the rest of the industry.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
so if IIS is just copying Apache... then remind me why should I choose IIS over Apache?
Drag n' Drop DVD Recommendations
Can you install two different versions of IIS and have them run on different ports and/or addresses? Install or uninstall without rebooting? Change or inspect the source code?
Everybody's a libertarian 'till their neighbour's becomes a crack house.
I was thinking the exact opposite. I like editting a plain ol' text file by hand. Editting XML is a pain; yeah it's all text but then so is Postscript.
Trolling is a art,
wow, I guess that most slashdotters REALLY hate MS enough to not even know the characteristics of their current offerings...
Oh come on. When you install SQL Server, you have to reboot. New installations of infrastructure are a different matter than deploying a new virtual directory.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
I tend to agree... sort of. Once your familiar with httpd.conf, editing it tends to be quite simple. However, trying to write an application front end to do that is a pain. This is where XML is nice. Its structured and formatted. The idea behind using XML isn't to make your life easier to edit it by hand... its to make it easier to make automated tools to edit and query the config files.
Henry Spencer
"Those who do not understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it -- badly".
Repeat after me, Apache is not UNIX. Apache is a web server. It's a web server that's not even exclusive to the UNIX world since it runs on Windows.
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
Are they going out of business of innovation?
The problem is that they were enough ahead of everyone else they quit innovating. Now they've finally realized that everyone else has surpassed them and it's catchup time.
This is one of the major ways Microsft has stayed on top. The are great at collecting the best ideas from many sources and implementing them in their own software. Often implementing these ideas better than the orginal. Microsoft isn't stupid. They're always watching the market to learn how to do things better.
Did anyone at Apache remember to patent hot-swappable web server modules?
$8.95/mo web hosting
No they won't. There is still a GUI tool to write the config files for you.
" Each Web application can have its own config file that overrides the system-wide configuration." This is not new. web.config (each web app) changes override machine.config (system-wide) already.
Okay...So I guess the OP fixated on one thing (modular configuration snippets) and wrote off all IIS efforts as copying.
It is this complacent attitude that will get Apache's ass handed to it.
When I last checked, Apache has no way (short of parsing the config file with your own crappy scripts using unreliable regexen ) for you to inspect the current configuration. IIS has this, the entire object model of the server configuration is available for inspection from the scripts, guaranteed to be accurate.
Apache needs to provide (if not a more structured file format), a set of script-callable APIs for configuring and managing the server.
Grepping the config file and making one or two changes then restarting may be sufficient when you're running 10 or 20 sites in production, but when you're hosting 1000s, you need something better.
IIS is also completely manageable from scripts, and I cast envious glances at the things our IIS admins are able to do with scripts. Create new vhost: Check. Temporarily disable vhost: Check. Modify vhost properties at runtime without bouncing the entire server: Check.
Apache doesn't have anything equivalent (unless you count the big-hammer apachectl START/STOP/GRACEFUL) as "management". Or you write your own. (Yeah, we all have time to reinvent that wheel.)
Apache is playing catch up here in every sense.
And this comes from someone who runs tonnes of sites under Apache in production.
Believe me, generating Apache configuration from a canonical source (i.e. a database) is a royal pain in the ass, but currently the only way you're really going to manage 1000s of sites with Apache if you're offering hosting services.
This management is the single biggest thing missing in Apache today.
Specifically, the IIS feature set has been broken down into modules to reduce overhead. Modules can be changed on the fly, without restarting the Web server
Oh come on, M$ isn't apeing Apache, they are simply finally getting around to doing what software folks have been doing almost since the begining of time (for computers anyway). It's not like Apache created the idea of having loadable modules that can be specified in a config file.
Flick M$ crap for taking so long to do it, fine, they deserve it. But acting like Apache created this style of architecture is just flat wrong.
Oh, and as to your question of why it taken so long, the answer is more than likely that they are just know feeling that it's important enough to do. The advantage of being in the position they are.
You've got this backward. Apache doesn't have an XML configuration file. It also doesn't have hot-swappable modules. If IIS now has these features, then it will be Apache that needs to catch up.
Apache has plenty of good features. I don't honestly know how it compares to IIS and I don't much care because I want to run on unix. But it is not perfect. These are two areas where it could improve.
(Why do so many people here think that Apache does have these features?)
Statistics say that IIS6 has been doing MUCH better than apache 2
It's merely a nested config file. Each option is set with a single line that has the option name and then the setting(s) to give that.
Many of these options can be put inside a 'restrictor'. You can restrict options to files, directories, URL paths (Locations), and virtual hosts. These restrictors look vaguely like XML, but lots of things look vaguely like XML.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Version control is essential for systems administration. You need a good, working "undo" button. That's what version control gives you. But VC works best with text files, not the registry. So switching to XML config files will give IIS admins a chance to bring their practises closer to those used by Apache admins (and the rest of the Unix sysadmin world).
-Dom
I a word? The PHB crowd demands it. Besides, even though I prefer Unix in its various flavors and use it exclusively on my desktop machine and my own servers I don't mind working with Windows. There is a number of solutions where it's use is mandatory either because there is a demand for Windows specific solutions like Frontpage or because a bigass customer demands Windows being used. Money talks bullshit walks and if the money says Windows I use Windows, I push Unix/Linux as far as I can but if the are dead set on Windows then so be it. I just think that if Microsoft wants to be taken seriously as a server OS vendor they have to include a much much bigger kit of commandline tools. Yes, I know Linux exists, and yes, I know that even on Windows I can painstakingly build my own toolkit with Perl/VB/C# etc... But I don't see why I should have to do that if every other Server OS vendor on the market provides these tools as standard? For all I care they can choose not install these tools by default to avoid confusing they "part-time-admins", just so long as they power tools are there on the Install disk for advanced users to select when we install a Windows Server OS.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow