Slashdot Mirror
Amazon.com switches to Apache
This week's ApacheWeek has the news that Amazon.com has switched from using Netscape's server to C2Net's Stronghold, an Apache-based commercial server (Stronghold is mostly known for it's SSL capability). Check out the Netcraft poke to see the setup Amazon is running.
Why is Netcraft not responding?... infact, it is refusing my connection. That's a BSD/Apache solution.
I commonly hear people say that it doesn't take much horsepower to supply enough capacity to handle a high-speed internet connection (eg. multiple T1). Wouldn't my connection time out if it were a bandwidth issue? If it were the dynamic content generation, wouldn't I get some headers, then a long pause? Instead my connection is being outright refused nine times out of ten. It is as though I'm hitting a port with no server on it at all.
I guess it all comes down to the Admin. They could have a high load, they could have a cap on the number of threads which Apache will generate, but this kind of stuff makes me quite skeptical. Slashdot occasionally does this too, far less frequently, but frequently enough to notice.
I strongly dislike the closed MS solution, and I know Apache works well for small and medium sized sites, but I've never come close to administering something with vicious traffic on it, so I'm quite ignorant of these things. If Apache is so vastly superior to IIS, why is Apache /BSD unable to serve my requests when I point my browser at Netcraft?
maybe your subconscious likes amazon.com because you probably get the mispelled URL entries from them. hehe
amazing.com?
$var = <STDIN>
$var =~ s/\\$//;
this is slashchomp
Talking of song, sadly david bowie's site's still NT4 and IIS...
BTW: www.amazon.co.uk and www.amazon.de also have switched to Stronghold/2.4.2 Apache/1.3.6 C2NetEU/2412 on DIGITAL UNIX
ms
Seems netcraft went down. Coincedence? or Slashdot?
I guess many companies are like my employer - they develop software for Windows using Microsoft tools (Visual C++ / SQL Server).
When they want to change their web-site from static text hosted somewhere to something more dynamic, it's not surprising that they think 'let's stick to what we know', set up a test copy of IIS and then develop the site using Microsoft technologies.
This is a fine example of Microsoft's dominance in one area covering over into another area.
I must admit to finding these NetCraft figures a big shock - reminds me of the figures for Netscape Navigator vs. I.E.
I would vote for Linux+Apache+Mod_Perl+a relational database (not necessarily a free gratis or free libre one, even).
Possibly design it to be connected to from another machine - probably a Windows machine, and therefore don't bother with X or a desktop.
I personally have looked at a number of books / websites / magazine articles about web technologies and found the O'Reilly 'Apache Modules' book very convincing, and felt that I would be inclined to have a go with this - I can believe this might be a usable technology whereas things like ASP look just too grotesque for words.
I can't believe anyone would want to use this nonsense - often people write ASP pages which then contain VBScript so they're essentially writing two levels of macro expansion, both of them some half-baked Basic derivative. Ugh!
If you want Apache to have 99% share just follow the advice in ApacheWeek, start registering domians with NetCraft like www.fred000001.homepage.com, fred000002... etc.
No, that uses a unpatented cipher, but still uses a patented method of key echange (RSA).
It's not overpriced if you look at say RedHat support costs; you're probably paying more for the support than the product with them.
But when Amazon was down I noticed it was still serving pages from Apache saying "back soon", so I don't see how it could have been the web server.
Here's a company who has what ammounts to a patent on cookies, and we're happy that they're using free software that was created in the type of atmosphere they're helping to destroy with their blackmail.
It's too bad we can't remove the right to use free software from companies currently blackmailing other companies with patents or other similar behaviour.
I'd laugh if they had to run the pathetic company on NT using a webserver written in Visual Basic.
It is all they deserve after all, with their hostile behaviour.
We've also had problems with NES locking up completely under only moderate load, and no clue as to why it happenned... I've also seen reports of this from other users, so I know I'm not the only one. Very frustrating!
Though I haven't run any formal benchmarks, Amazon.com seems much peppier after the upgrade. Before, pages would take forever to transfer and their servers took about 15 seconds to even answer a GET/POST request, let alone do something like SSL.
Anyone got official speeds? Before and after would be cool.
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
I'd agree... interesting though to note that Amazon was still running Netscape Commerce 1.something. For whatever reason they never upgraded to Netscape Enterprise Server.
Could it be that Netscape's first server release was their best ever (like the browser)?
I agree. Proper load-balancing keeps you visible if a few web servers go down. But why train and pay a monkey to reboot NT boxes all day? Run Apache on a *nix and forget about them.
If you're responsible for a large web presence and haven't evaluated Apache, you're not doing your job very well. Likewise, if you haven't tried NT and IIS, you probably don't appreciate just how good Apache really is.
gcc doesn't get much mass-media attention, and that is (in my opponion) by far the most important piece of free software.
The reason should be obvious, Linux and Mozilla is easier for non-geeks to relate to. Most people have an OS and a Web browser on the computer they use.
I think this is fine, mass-media attention is nothing particularily desirable. If you want to be a star, free software isn't the smartest route to take. If you want to hack on cool code, the quite projects are fine. Your peers will know of your work, who cares that Joe Sixpack will never hear about it?
So just let Linus enjoy or suffer his fame. He is a nice representative for the whole free software world anyway.
Does anyone know what they're running behind apache? Is it PHP, perl, servlets?
_______
2B1ASK1
Our Sun SS10 (old pathetic 5 year old box with a 75mhz CPU/256MB ram) handles about 200,000 (mostly static) hits a day. This kind of load is _nothing_ for apache and unix.
You can't legally use Apache+SSL in the US for any commercial purpose without buying a commercial version of apache unless you want to license the RSA patents, at hundreds of times the cost of buying a commercial server.
The decision to use Stronghold (which is massively overpriced) probably relates to the fact that its one of the few that you can get a Digital UNIX port of... on Linux, redhat's professional 6.1 is a better deal. (And 1/6 the cost)
Come on, man. If you do a traceroute, you will know that most of the time is spent on getting packets through some routers in uk(I suspect), it is not the Apache/BSD's fault.
It's still the same ugly looking, poorly colored, hard to read, unconsistent site that it was before.
I have a big bag full of two cents and I'm coming your way.
Come on, man. If you do a traceroute, you will
know that most of the time is spent on getting
packets through some routers in uk(I suspect),
it is not the Apache/BSD's fault.
What about Raven? http://www.covalent.net
In all seriousness?
Even I do that sometimes.
I wish there was an Ask Slashdot on selling domain names. I'd really like to know if I could get half a million dollars for the thing, like many of the domain sales sites imply.
D
----
c2 was founded in Berkeley, California and their
headquarters are still here in Oakland. (Yes,
export restrictions suck, but C2 has found ways
to work with/around them.)
One decently sized leap for Apache.
I'm really glad to see that more companies are making the change to Apache's web server... If nothing else, it brings to light the blatantly obvious fact that *nix is the superior network OS.
the only trail worth taking is the one you blaze yourself
their new found stability will go to their heads and advertisment will increase exponentially
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. --Sun-Tzu
Apache running mod_perl is much more stable I assure you. And much more secure than IIS. See this advisory. In all honesty, have you ever used apache? Its time tested and runs the majority of internet servers. Install apache (even in NT) and see how much better it is. I promise you will never go back.
I don't know about *nix and Apache really being better web servers. I'm no professional on this matter, but where I work we have been running just fine on several IIS/NT machines that take a heavy beating at all times of the day, and despite some ASP bugs, everything seems to work fine (once we figured out what we were doing). I'm probably going to get lynched for saying this, but from what I've seen, Apache is just different, not really better.
=I am Jack's general protection fault=
I'm glad to see that yet another corporate giant isn't too big to realize what's in their best interests when it comes to web serving reliability.
Now if OnSale and other online-stores would only switch to Apache, it would make my surfing alot easier. Many times I've been surfing for that special piece of hardware only to find myself drumming my fingers on the desk waiting for their lame server to send me a page or two. If these competitors keep using their IIS or Netscape servers, they're only going to drown in their own downtime & latency.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
I also heard that you need a $4500 dollar license to let your buddy come over look at your new win2k box.
man... microsoft is asking for way too much for something that is not so revolutionary. I guess they hope that companies will think its better becuase its more expensive. I hope companies go to linux becuase its free.
I've always found Apache to be an excellent web server; although you have to be careful with the configuration otherwise your server will get bogged down if you are slashdotted...
Actually I believe Apache will gain even more marketshare in server space at Microsoft's expense; one reading of the new Microsoft Windows 2000 prices is that you now also require a $1995 unlimited web client access license if you want to run a largeish web site.
--------- Webmaster, http://www.cpureview.com and
It's good to see companies such as Amazon switching over to Apache. Maybe this will help route more of the OSS craze in Apache's direction.
I am surprised that they [apache] do not get more mass media recognition. Can anyone see any obvious reasons why Linux gets so much more attention than Apache?
DM
But, was the Amazon outage related to the change over?
Amazon.com Outage
Details like that can make or break other sys admins' choices.
I ran Netscape years ago, and it had horrible memory leaks which forced frequent restarts and really brought down the performance of the system.
Apache has never given me a lick of trouble.
If their performance results mirror mine, I would guess that they're ramping up for the holiday season, where they expect billions of people to come in and buy books, toys, music and what-have-you.
It's strange, but they will always be books for me. It would take a major shake for me to consider another book vendor, but I don't know what it would take for me to buy toys or music there; I really like specialist companies and will probably continue buying from them.
D
----
As far as I know. The global server id is not secure and is supposed to be stored by the NSA. That is the reason, why we (in the financial market) can't rely on that. Maybe that's an rumor, but even then it's enough to make our customers freezing.
Everyone in the media has always questioned Linux's ability to handle a large system, and with Amazon switching to Apache, it should turn a few heads and really bring the stability of Linux and Apache to the forefront...
But have a look at The Netcraft Web Server Survey. Apache took a beating of -1.65 percents while IIS gained 2.78 percents. Even when Webjump is the reason, it's quite a massive loss for Apache.
What could we do to gain more share? It looks like the Mindcraft "tests" are still hurting and badly. But we have to fight back and with style. Apache on a unix box has lots of advantages. It's free, fast, secure and rock solid. It doesn't need expensive hardware. There are also many big sites using Apache. But somehow it is not enough.
I guess Apache needs an "Web hosting for Dummies"-book as it's more a rule than exception that IIS-sites are run by dummies. Also it would be cool to start "selling" Apache. Sell a Linux+Apache-installation for exactly the same price as NT but donate all the money to for example the Red Cross. That would make a nice ad :-)
This also means that one of the largest ecommerce sites now supports transactions using unpatented/unencumbered cryptography, which helps break the commercial software stranglehold on ecommerce.
To see for yourself, if you've got OpenSSL or ssleay installed, try this -
s_client -host www.amazon.com -port 443 -debug -state -pause -cipher DES-CBC3-SHA
Go to your management and point out to them that if Amazon.com thinks Apache is better, then your company should consider it too.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
It is probably the best example we have of why US export restrictions are bad for US businesses, and more importantly (at least for those of us in the UK), it's an example of why the UK shouldn't adopt similar export restrictions, something I'm increasingly worried that our government will try and do.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
"Wow, their copy of the Best Butts of '99 is 1 penny off!"
They're just one-click shopping their way into my heart.
I'm getting really sick of all this platform-specific babbling I hear.
What's the article? Amazon switches from a commercial web server to a
free one, perhaps for performance reasons. Good. What about the
platform? Who cares?
To further confuse the issue: NT runs on Alphas. Apache runs on NT. On
an x86, you can run NT under Linux, or Linux under NT. Therefore, you
could try running IIS under a Linux box (emulating NT) if you wanted to.
Other platforms can do x86 emulation, especially the Alphas. So.
Were we discussing the OS? What about the hardware platform? Nope. We
were discussing the web server, and Free Software.
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I just spent two comatose hours yesterday, after I was invited by the "NT Security" team to listen to a presentation on Microsoft Site Server.
With VB, ASP and Front Page, a very large pressure built up inside this organisation to deploy NT, IIS and SQL-Server accross the Web server landscape.
Classic Quote by the Microsoftie "Site Server can deploy content to Unix Web servers as well. We *still* have some customers in this situation". The implication being that they will run Unix until we get these tools deployed properly and it will become a natural choice to replace the old technology with brand "New Technology".
Don't underestimate the power of the MS desktop on the Intranet perverting the Internet in its own image.
Slashdot: Where nerds gather to pool their ignorance
I'm just curious why Amazon would go with a open source web browser but use a comerical adition for security. I know Apache has a 128 bit encryption adition which from my experience is quite awsome. Any thoughts?
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
My NT4/IIS4 PII/266 server was handling an average of 9,000 requests/hour with spikes of 20,000 requests/hour and handling as many as 1,000 email messages/hour - not average, but spikes. Does that count as heavy? I needed to reboot that machine about every 3 months.
No, that does not count as very heavy. Go over a couple of forums to the answers from the person who switched the Royal Family over to Linux to get real life judgement of how to handle a somewhat heavier load.
And no, you should not need to reboot every 3 months.
Would Apache have handled the load? Most likely but the point is NT and IIS are more than capable of handling as much as you have bandwidth to support.
Exactly right. Virtually anything can do the basic job. Now look at licensing costs, stability, and security. While NT and IIS can do it, various variations on the Unix theme with Apache can deliver more value for less.
BTW do yourself a favour and try ZOPE...
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht