Slashdot Mirror
Apache passes 2 million hosts
HoserHead writes "The new Netcraft Web Server Survey is out, and on it Apache has bypassed the two million site mark. In fact, it was the only web server software which increased in percentage: Everything else decreased. Apache now controls 54% of the web. Another Open Source Software triumph! "
I always think that RapidSite server was apache...
My machine is running Apache too. But it's only availiable to the outer world a few minutes a day when I connect by modem to check my email (and /.)
But does this count for the statistics? Anyone can point their browsers to it if they know my dynamic IP no. And at least I am a frequent user of the services it provides =)
Egg runs Linux (search old Slashdot articles / postings & I believe Apache (probably with the Server string mangled).
What we really want to know (think about it!) is what percentage of the web's TRAFFIC Apache serves up. That tells the real story, and I bet Apache would look a lot better.
Think about it. Who cares about web sites that nobody ever visits except search-engine and web-survey bots? The web sites that COUNT are the ones serving up *mondo* pages.
That's why they changed the server name to "Undisclosed".
Few students can have the same ip and the machine turned on the day of the survey...
When you explore a site, the ip & domain name are stored and reexplored the day of the survey, so the students with linux and apache servers at home with PPP conections doesn't count for the survey...
I think Netcraft's survey is very exact and showns the real situation on Internet...
As a MUD server programmer, I know single-process is a huge performance boost on a uniprocessor machine. ;-) But how about on an SMP box?
'course, some people (including me) favor the RAIS (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Servers) approach over the MegaServer approach.
All of you must read:
http://www.netcraft.com/survey/mechan ics.html
Some notes:
* The survey counts each domain names as seperate servers, including those with the same ip
* Netcraft when you try a new site saves its hostname and ip, and later, each month check all sites, so people with server on PPP conections didn't count for the survey... only permanent machines...
There is a breakdown by domain.. Apache is 56% of .com..
BTW- I noticed in the server breakout they count ssl apache and php apache etc as other browsers.. Yuck.
"Netscape-Enterprise is also being used by BMW, Dilbert, Playboy, Sybase, Ferrari and The Vatican. "
wow, that just about covers all the bases, doesn't it . . .
click here
I suspect it would count as a function of how often your machine is connected.
If Netcraft do regular sweeps... and the sweeps are big enough, then the statistics would tend towards a function of the server type weighted by how often that server is connected.
Netscape is losing overall share to IIS and Apache, but it looks like they are holding on where the money is, and in fact kicking ass.
try http://egg.microsoft.com/icons/apache_ pb.gif
Powered by apache...
You use the Netscape Browser icon on your webpage, not Netscape Server.
Eugene
As everybody knows that UNIX platforms are better for the web, if you're gonna stop using IIS, why dont you stop using NT at all. Linux is free and you get other free stuff from GNU, better stability, better everything. So use apache on Linux. (or FreeBSD)
You must have DNS to count (I think)
Appears to me as it sure could...
Very interesting site. Not only does it appear to be running Apache, but the content is interesting (once you have found your way there). Has anyone else actually gone there?? What do you make of the protocols they mention, like the Rendezvous protocol?? Could Microsoft be supporting open protocols/standards efforts by the IETF?? Perhaps they are just putting on a show to improve their image in the face of the Trial... Or are they indeed learning a lesson??
They didnt include mine so that is 2,000,001 Given the amount of help asked on apache in help groups there must be quite a few small ppl using it as well. How many small ppl use the MS product i wonder?
Thing
mfh@gunboat:~$ queso egg.microsoft.com
131.107.85.207:80 * Linux 2.0.35 to 2.0.9999
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
> 2) what server is MS running on egg.microsoft.com to have it listed by Netcraft as
/.-ers everywhere?
> "undisclosed"?
egg.microsoft.com? Isn't that the one that popped up running Linux a few months ago, to the general amusement of
-- brandon s. allbery, sysadmin @ cmu electrical & computer engineering "Think, youth, THINK!"
Yeah, and every so often someone over in res.cmu.edu portscans the academic domains.... (Like we're not capable of detecting it, huh, d00dz? Feh.)
-- brandon s. allbery, sysadmin @ cmu electrical & computer engineering "Think, youth, THINK!"
Apache is big in memory sometimes, but doesn't have to be.
With the Apache default distribution, apache_pb.gif is in Apache's /icons/ directory. I guess it's possible that they copied the contents of the Apache /icons/ directory into their IIS /icons/ directory, but odds are, the simpler explanation (they're running apache) is probably the correct one.
Covering up the identity of your server will not prevent someone from trying out the exploits anyhow. They just will be going through a longer list of expoloits to see which one will work. As long as you're hooked to the net you're open to exploits no matter what.
Please correct me if I'm wrong (or just shoot me if you feel like it) but this seems to be a case of security through obscurity.
Besides, I often check out what server someone is running out of curiosity if I can't tell from visiting their site (*.asp is is a dead giveaway but what about *.html?something=oranother ?). Seeing Apache in the headers always brings a smile to my face.
curiosity killed the drunken monkey
narbey
-- "The evil stops here" -Petr
You're correct in saying that each virtual host counts as a server -- just check out how many "hosts" use thttpd in the UK - and it's all down to Demon Internet's customer homepages.
Nope, the 'blindly' (in the justice sense) just look up the name and check it.
If you have 500 hosts on one IP, they count as 500 in their servey.
$you = new YOU;
honk() if $you->love(perl)
Therefore, since many of the webservers out there are configured with Apache (which I don't doubt), and Apache is very easy to do virtual hosting with, I would have to believe that these statistics do not account for actual number of web servers in use using a specific product.
Note, that this is both good and bad for Apache, in analysis. The statistics may be misleadingly high for Apache, and that fact comming into light will shine poorly on Apache. But then again, competeting products which don't do virtual hosting, or are more difficult to set up virtual hosts on (and therefore seprate servers are set up) would show a strength in Apache, because it shows the power of this software when you can get one machine to do what it takes several machines to do using a diffrent product.
So, do they do this by IP or address? I would think, it would be most accrurately done based on IP alone... But it says "ystematically poll each one with an HTTP request for the server name." So, therefore, the statistics could be quite misleading.
I explored some sites that I KNOW to be running Apache, and I get this message "Sorry, no hostnames match." Therefore, I wonder how up-to-date or out-of-date thier dns is... and I have further suspicions about the accuracy of this survay.
That will not be of any help. If Netcraft can't get in touch with the web-server when gathering next month's stats, it will not be counted in.
See also http://www.php.net/usage.php3 for info about how PHP is doing (the graph doesn't have the January number yet, though).
I wish they wold provide an OS listing. I get the
distinct impresion that they compile such a
listing by default but don't publish it.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Get the breakdown of usage within particular domains. 65.79% ofApache is *.com while 56.71% of IIS is the same. Apache has
5.64% in *.UK while IIS has 2.77%.
My translation of this is that
1: The UK is one of the biggest net users outside of the US. (
Not surprising even with the Cox family making up 10% or so of it
:).
2: Apache has a bigger lead outside of mainstream American
business than it dose inside.
3: That there is no market in which IIS has any advantage.
Long term prognosis is that the lead will widen and eventually
IIS installed base will start to decline as those deleting it toimprove performance and stability outnumber those installing it
fresh.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
It's GPL, it's single-process (HUGE advantage)
open-source, and kicks Apache's butt!
http://www.roxen.com/
A REALLY BIG commercial website I know very well
uses it for everything. Including https://
Try it! And forget that
Perl and CGI ever existed... you won't miss them.
Then why not just change it to say "Microsoft IIS" like they did with the rest of their servers?
(I'm kidding about the "rest of their servers" bit, BTW)
--
For every post, there is an equal and opposite re-post.
following the platform link, they list Apache-derived servers, its at 58.29 %
In march or april, the 60% mark will be reached if current trends continue..
This is the first month that Microsoft's web server market has actually shrunk.
It's a good thing we have Apache, because it will keep any company from decommoditizing web server protocols.
Considering how important the web is, Microsoft is losing a lot by not being able to control the server market. This is good for consumers and for open standards.
I don't know about your school, but mine doesn't let students run web servers in the dorms on their personal computers unless they sign a big paper full of restrictions: No web servers for anything but educational use. No anonymous FTP sites. No *anything* on non-standard ports. No firewalls. No portscan blockers. And on and on. If ya want, you can read about it at the Geek Oppression page under the story on UCLA.
queso seems to think that egg.microsoft.com is running an old copy of linux
(Linux 1.3.xx, 2.0.0 to 2.0.34)
- MbM
- MbM
In fact, it was the only web server software which increased in percentage: Everything else decreased.
Not quite; thttpd increased by 0.01.
--
Infuriate left and right
I wonder what the margin of error is.
Doesn't look like anyone is really changing their servers, though. Too short of an interval to really be scientific, I am thinking...
I'm glad to see Apache doing well. I have found that is the BEST webserver out there. SSL, advanced logging, cookies, security.... everything. Even the Win32 version is great. I would tell all of you IIS users to move to Apache-Win32. It is perfect on NT!
Ex Machina "From the Machine"
xm@GeekMafia.dynip.com [http://GeekMafia.dynip.com/]
Apache is bitchy and makes you pute rs/nmap-2_02.tgz) allows pretty accurate remote OS detection but there is no need to blab your vulnerabilities to the world.
'Server: Apache/1.3.3' in your headers. mod_headers won't let you overwrite or append to this. However I KNOW it is possible because one
"ServerTokens" directive will include modules you have installed... Has anyone written something to force headers on Apache/1.3.X? Bad enough that people can tell what webserver (and version) you're running (so they can attack it) but by default Apache will send what OS you use to anyone who connects. And if "ServerTokens Full" (I think.), they'll know what OS you run and ALL the module versions you have installed. I usually don't support security through obscurity, but this is an added layer so script kiddies can't scan every host for certain exploitable versions. On the same note, I'd recommend a lot of you sendmail users figure out a way so sendmail doesn't blab its version so all the spammers and people scanning for weak hosts don't find you. The same goes for ftpd `SYST` replies and telnet login banners. I know software like nmap (ftp://GeekMafia.dynip.com/security/network-scann
(Damn I'm off topic!)
Ex Machina "From the Machine"
xm@GeekMafia.dynip.com [http://GeekMafia.dynip.com/]
yeah.. I was hoping for a more general solution so I can control all of my headers completely.... alas no :(. I wanted to be a wiseass and manipulate them dynaically.
oh well
Ex Machina "From the Machine"
xm@GeekMafia.dynip.com [http://GeekMafia.dynip.com/]
If the current servey does NOT include students, and you say about %50 are useing Apachie, then mathmatics say that includeing students would reduce the %. If infact 60 or 70% of students use apachie (which from what I see they don't) then it would raise the stats. BTW, I run apachie even tho I don't know anythign beyond putting the HTML and stuff in the directory and it works. :-)
Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy.
If I'm not mistaken, isn't Apache under a BSD style license? Which technically means that if you have the source code, you can change one line in it and give it a new name, sell it, etc, as long as you give credit to the original copyright owners. That's how they're incorporating BSD into OS X Server on the Mac, and that's why we have FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, BSDI, and probably other derivatives of BSD Lite that we don't know about yet.
Dogma: Dead (mostly because your Karma ran it over)
Hm, they could have just put together a simple stack of source that listens on port 80 and returns that header too. Wait for a GET request and return a temporarily moved response. Couldn't be too difficult to do. Although the queso evidence in some of the other replies has been quite convincing.
Dogma: Dead (mostly because your Karma ran it over)
Hmmm... I prefer my apache over most of the other webservers I've seen. It doesn't bug me that it sucks up 4 megs of ram or anything, and the fact that it spawns multiple instances is so that it is able to handle multiple requests at once. I often have 10 instances at once, but since they all share the same code (run multiple instances of the same program and the code gets reused, and the program gets a new data area), it's only taking memory for the data space it's using. And, having the extensibility is nice. PHP3 and SSL (even just for the hell of it) are things I'll eventually find a use for (I've already found one for php3), as is the responiveness of the server on a 56k line. And I like the fancy logging, I can easily find out who came, what page they went to, what page they came from (so I can track down those search engines) and what web browser they're running (did you know that StarOffice 5.0 has a Mozilla/3.0 HTML engine in it?) Personally I've only tried 4 web servers (3 of them on the Mac platform), and out of all of them I'd quickly jump on apache.
Enough with the long comment already, I'm done.
Dogma: Dead (mostly because your Karma ran it over)
Hehehe, doesn't this show anything: :oP)
:o)
8:25am, up 5 days, 13:06, 9 users, load average: 0.36, 0.27, 0.19
(since the last time i accidentally unplugged my box
And nice ISP with the static IP's for $5/mo too
Dogma: Dead (mostly because your Karma ran it over)
Does it handle PHP3? Multiple server processes when netscape or IE hits the site? You know, you can run apache down to a single server, and it still starts more server processes to handle all of the incoming requests.
:o)
And, besides, I like being able to have the little "Powered by Apache" logo at the bottom of my page
Dogma: Dead (mostly because your Karma ran it over)
http://egg.microsoft.com/icons/ if it's not apache well they must have did a good with with IIS BUT the directory Icons dosen't work it's a unix box
StartServers 1
MinSpareServers 1
MaxSpareServers 2
Would do you a lot of good. Or something close to that. If you don't want apache to be big, direct it to be small.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
If I understand the way they derive their figures, in the next survey the percentage for Apache will fall. They seem to list anything that is not vanilla Apache as something else. With so many changing to PHP-Apache, the success of PHP will distort their figures further.
Its a pity they can't measure Web throughput by server. I bet that would show an amazing bias towards Apache and its derivatives.
One dark cloud on the horizon. I assume a lot of the Web's commercial growth will now be in various forms of e-business. If Apache isn't part of an effective e-business suite it may loose out. I know IBM is using it in their e-business suite, but that isn't fully open source. I wonder how this will play out.
After reading throught the Netcraft results, I was left wondering two things...
1) how much of Microsofts web server market share is comprised of PWS users
2) what server is MS running on egg.microsoft.com to have it listed by Netcraft as "undisclosed"?
"Although we may build the technology that we define as tools, we must be vigilant that those tools do not define us."
Also, image handling is something Roxen is very good at (with on-the-fly graphical header generation and much more). I made a little script that does about what your script does, but with float scaling and support for GIF, PNG and JPEG.
Click here for a demonstration or view the source.
As you can see, my script is only 80 lines and 2300 chars, compared to your 509 lines and 1900 chars.
I'm both novice in IIS and Apache, but I'd like
to know how do I actually migrate a site that
may have used asp to Apache, is there any extension on Apache to work with asp?
Thanks.
Chris
And regardless of the admittedly weak ``you shoulda fixed your software'' argument, it is important for network software that interacts with other software to make itself identifiable to other software so that the software that interacts with it can work around its brain-damages. Admittedly, in a perfect world, software shouldn't have brain-damages, but one man's feature is another man's blemish.
I know of lots of IIS sites that isn't in the survey too. And I'm sure there's lots of all the major webserver types that aren't in the survey.
They've never claimed to sample all servers on the internet.
i'm almost completely positive that i was not included in this survey...at least according to logs. in any case, what about the countless thousands of students running resnet webpages and such? this past semester doing a few subnet sweeps i noticed that a majority of students running webservers were running apache...even about 50% of windows users running webservers. i'm sure that would increase the stats a few points.
I'm a student at Virginia Tech who remains somewhat liberal towards resnet operations. all students are given a static IP and hostname which corresponds to their personal id. i think this is the way it ought to be, but there have been talks about imposing DHCP (which doesn't make too much sense, sysadmin wise).
oh my god..aren't we geniuses.
--sendmail.cf--
#O SmtpGreetingMessage=I am paranoid
as for OS detection, queso does a good job of doing that by the way icmp packets are constructed.
well that's kinda pointless isn't it? there are two essential points to using DHCP. 1) for security reasons over static (which, incidentally don't apply to a DHCP server assigning static addresses, anyhow) 2) for lightening the bandwidth load of computers remain up, but don't necessarilly need to be connected (which doesn't really apply much as most DHCP clients startup at init). Chances are, if your DHCP servers are linux, they're running the ISC DHCP server, straight out of the box. even if your school assigned random addresses, you could bypass this by hijacking a leased address, in which it won't expire until 2038. one nice thing i can think of with your setup is that sysadmins can grab your NIC anytime you obtain a lease...that in combination with a VLAN ready hub, will guarantee quick and painless lock-outs of code of conduct violators. all in all, in my opinion, DHCP wouldn't be worth the fuss as an administrator if you lease it in a static manner. let me know if you can think of any added benefits over static addressing.
Apache. =]
good point...reduce the troubleshooting aspect. DHCP actually makes sense...just not when you're using it for static allocation.