Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apache Webserver Surpasses 50 Million Website Mark

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the but-who-is-counting dept.

chris81 writes "For the first time ever, the Apache Web Server is powering more than 50 million websites, according to Netcraft's Web Server Survey for October. Although relative share fell by 0.67 percent, the total number of sites powered by Apache grew to over 52 million. Microsoft's IIS finished second with more than 15 million sites served."

15 of 202 comments (clear)

  1. I'm impressed by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not just that so many people and companies host websites on Apache, I'm more impressed that there are so many websites?

    Such an enormous collection of data, it boggles my mind.

    --
    This is the sig that says NI (again)
    1. Re:I'm impressed by rolfwind · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would be interested to see what OSes those sites are running on, I'd suspect it would kill the "Linux is just as insecure as Microsoft" myth.

      BTW, does Netcraft have a version of the DowJones 500 to see what the top 500 sites are running? I can't seem to find anything....

  2. Re:Odd lines in chart by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not entirely sure I understand what it means, but July 2001 and June 2004 show an almost mirror image in terms of the blue and red lines (Apache and MS.) When one goes up, the other goes down and vice-versa. Strange. I wonder what exactly was happening during that time period to cause that.

    Several big hosting providers were trying to switch their hosting between Apache and IIS. Providers that are big enough to actually make those kinds of dents in the graph. As you can see from the final result, most of them figured out Apache was the better solution. I wouldn't use IIS to serve HTML either, only if the content required .NET and you didn't really have a choice.

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  3. Re:Actually... by hostpure · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is most likely because of PHP and a fair collection of PHP Blogging scripts which are available. I mean just look at the sheer number of blogs at the moment and it isn't hard to understand just how many new sites there are now. Must be a dot blog boom (I doubt it will be too long before we see the .blog TLD)

  4. Well happy birthday or something by Xiph · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I really can't see this as anything that'll come as a surprise to anyone, nor the fact that apache came first. I also have a feeling that the apache guys see this the same way, as it is nowhere to be found at http://apache.org/foundation/news.html/. but i guess any round number is worth celebrating, after all free as in drunk, is as important as any other freedom ;)

    --
    Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
  5. Re:Odd lines in chart by inkswamp · · Score: 2, Insightful
    That makes sense. Thanks for explaining.

    I wouldn't use IIS to serve HTML either,

    I've dealt with both Apache and IIS professionally and by far--by far!--I have encountered the most issues with IIS, from little annoyances to full-blown meltdowns. I'm not sure how IIS survives in the market place when its competitor is more robust, functions better and is free. Chalk one up to the marketing people at MS, I guess.

    --
    --Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
  6. Re:Odd lines in chart by larien · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The big movers are the domain registrars; they'll host several hundred parked domains on a single server. While they're all using the same content (probably the same files, even), they'll show up as hundreds of sites. If they move from Apache to IIS (or vice versa), several hundred (or thousand?) websites appear to switch.

  7. What would be really interesting... by sosume · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What would be really interesting would be a figure of total pages served (over the entire internet), grouped by server type. Or the average return opn investement, per server type. Number of hostnames really says nothing, I can add a few thousand myself with no trouble at all.

    1. Re:What would be really interesting... by DaHat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree, hostnames alone is pretty worthless. Personally I would like to see statistics based on IP address and not host names.

      It's pretty easy for any person to colo a LAMP setup and host the webpage of everyone they know who doesn't want to be on geocities anymore... far easier than plunking down the cash for a Windows 2003 install with IIS6.

      Of course, there are always studies like that of Port 80 software who found that 53.7% of corporate web servers were running IIS, vs the 22.7% of Apache.

      See http://www.port80software.com/surveys/top1000webse rvers/ for more details.

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
  8. Innovation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Don't want to be a troll, but what are the latest innovations Apache introduced lately to stay on top? I think we don't talk often enough about this software here on Slashdot. No, I'm not new here...

  9. Quality issue by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Yes, it's interesting to see that competition forced a reduction in price from MS' side, but you still have the problem of quality.

    Qualitywise, MS SQL Server is the IIS of the database world. Only if you somehow got locked into .NET or some other proprietary hook into MS would you need MS SQL over an industry standard like Postgresql or MySQL which are in approximately the same niche. Those two are even starting to nibble at the heels of Oracle in some contexts, unlike MS SQL.

    MS has tried give aways before with IIS. People learn their lesson and move on, unless they get locked in. The same goes with SQL databases.

    So a purchase price of zero is an advantage, but the main reason people use Apache and the other parts of LAMP is the quality. The price is just gravy.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
    1. Re:Quality issue by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've got to disagree with you on this one. MS-SQL is about the -only- MS product that is worth a damn.

      MySQL? I think you need to lay off the Kool-Aid. Postgresql? Maybe, but it doesn't come with the suite of tools that you get with MS-SQL.

      Really, I dislike MS as much as the next slashbot, but MS SQL server is the exception to the rule.

      --
      A house divided against itself cannot stand.
  10. Re:Three considerations by slim · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They just say they "received responses from 74,409,971 sites" while not defining what a site actually is.

    Netcraft is very clear about this.

    One server running 10,000 virtual hosts is 10,000 "sites".

    This is why historically thttpd did very well in Netcraft surveys -- it was good at hosting thousands of sites from one server (and allowed throttling of over-used sites).

  11. Re:Why use IIS? by ggeens · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One word: ASP.

    Many corporate sites start of as a set of static pages with a "Contact us" web form. ASP is typically used for that as it requires only minimal programming effort.

    Later on, when more dynamic content is added, they will often stick with IIS since they already know it.

    --
    WWTTD?
  12. Re:Micosoft salesrep by slavemowgli · · Score: 2, Insightful

    IIS is arguably easier to use then apache because you don't need to go threw and end a text file and add commands that may not be part of the default configuration.

    If your IT department is afraid of editing text files (I assume that was supposed to mean "edit", right?), then you have a bigger problem than being dependant on Microsoft, anyway.

    --
    quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.