www-gui-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lawrie Scovell" <lawrie.scov...@lineone.net>
Subject Re: The ways of combating M$
Date Mon, 02 Dec 2002 09:05:23 GMT
Are these hit rates based on standard Apache, or Apache + SGI performance
patch? Haven't looked at Apache for over a year, but the performance patch
makes a huge performance difference. But, in reality, most web sites don't
require outrageous hit rates seeing as the industry's emphasis is more
towards application server performance...

Anyway, combating M$ is based more on just hit rates - what about,
licensing, portability, standards, security, usability... but this is the
wrong place to discuss this.

I myself tried to create a GUI in Java (http://netloony.sourceforge.net/) to
help on the usability front, but didn't have enough time to complete it
fully.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Erick de La Fuente" <erick@dbass.net>
To: <gui-dev@apache.org>; <webmaster33@bigfoot.com>
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 6:34 AM
Subject: RE: The ways of combating M$


>
>
>
>              The November 2002 Netcraft Web Server Survey is out;
>
>
>                      http://www.netcraft.com/survey/
>
>
>
>                                Top Developers
>
>         Developer October 2002 Percent November 2002 Percent Change
>         Apache        21258824   60.54      21699320   60.80   0.26
>         Microsoft     10144453   28.89      10239423   28.69  -0.20
>         Zeus            711998    2.03        775916    2.17   0.14
>         iPlanet         478413    1.36        488094    1.37   0.01
>
>                                Active Sites
>
>         Developer October 2002 Percent November 2002 Percent Change
>         Apache        10470848   65.39      10729462   64.69  -0.70
>         Microsoft      4013397   25.06       4244842   25.59   0.53
>         Zeus            215957    1.35        271753    1.64   0.29
>         iPlanet         227424    1.42        230902    1.39  -0.03
>
>
>   Around the Net
>
>    The survey records a net gain of around half a million sites this
>    month, as increases in the rest of the world outweighed a continuing
>    fall in the USA. Since the start of the year, the proportion of the
>    sites found by the survey in the US has fallen from 56% to 45%. This
>    primarily reflects the reduction of sites parked at domain
>    registration companies and the decline of advertising funded mass
>    hosting. However there has also been a net repatriation of existing
>    active sites out of America as hosting services in the rest of the
>    world have become more comparable with those in US.
>
>    Climate change kills Hosting Dinosaurs
>
>     [1]Genuity, nee BBN Planet, was put into administration yesterday,
>     with [2]Level 3 agreeing to buy its assets. Earlier in the month
>     Cable & Wireless [3]announced that it will close 23 out of 42
>     datacenters, many acquired only a year ago when C&W bought Exodus
>     after Exodus itself had entered Chapter 11, and in the process turf
>     out customers currently paying over $300M in annualised revenue.
>
>     Cable & Wireless' situation sounds appalling, but viewed from the
>     internet its decline appears not significantly worse than its near
>     competitors. Most of the best known colocation companies have seen
>     declines of in the region of 20% or more in the numbers of ip
> addresses
>     running web servers over the last year. Digex, which shows a
>     75% decline, divested part of its customer base to Allegiance
> Telecom
>     during the year, while PSI has suffered a prolonged decline since
> its
>     financial problems became clear to all in late 2000.
>
>     With the exception of Cable & Wireless, all of the companies in the
>     first table below have suffered large losses and financial distress.
>
>                                   Dinosaurs
>                    Number of IP Addresses hosting Websites
>                     Hoster     Dec 01   Nov 02     Change
>                       cw.net   11,980   9,653      -19.4%
>                   exodus.net   10,797   8,605      -20.3%
>                     gblx.net   6,681    4,767      -28.6%
>                    above.net   5,838    4,133      -29.2%
>                   level3.net   8,980    5,449      -39.3%
>                    digex.com   9,883    2,374      -76.0%
>                      psi.net   5,244    1,272      -75.7%
>
>
>    By contrast, the most successful hosting companies in terms of growth
>    of ip addresses hosting internet web sites, are smaller organisations
>    that have grown primarily with funding supplied by customers, rather
>    than investors. Some have had no external investor funding at all,
> and
>    venture capitalists must deeply regret not only the extent to which
>    companies like Exodus and Digex were funded, but also that they
>    overlooked, or were denied access to, some of the safest
> opportunities
>    in the industry.
>
>                                  Primates
>                   Number of IP Addresses hosting Websites
>                   Hoster          Dec 01   Nov 02   Change
>                   rackshack.net   5,152    13,459  +161.2%
>                 crystaltech.com   6,874    11,170   +62.5%
>            dialtoneinternet.net   22,441   31,351   +39.7%
>                 ratiokontakt.de   6,444    8,375    +30.0%
>                          he.net   9,659    12,493   +29.3%
>                    datapipe.net   13,603   17,340   +27.5%
>                   rackspace.com   8,776    11,160   +27.2%
>
>
>    Hosting industry participants will likely regard Rackshack as a
> unique
>    company which has hit a sweet spot with customers, but will take note
>    that while the dedicated server industry was kickstarted by Cobalt,
>    today several of the fastest growing companies, typified by
>    Crystaltech and Datapipe, are ones that have given prominence to
>    hosting on Windows.
>
>
>    Microsoft RDS vulnerability not likely to be pervasive on web servers
>
>    Microsoft have recently announced a [4]critical security
>    vulnerability in Microsoft's Data Access Components (MDAC). MDAC
>    contains a feature called Remote Data Services (RDS), a technology to
>    provide a database interface over HTTP. It has been an optional
>    component for Microsoft-IIS since version 4, and is integrated into
>    Internet Explorer.
>
>    Some people have interpreted a widely sourced [5]Bloomberg news
>    article in which our figure of 4 million active web sites running
>    Microsoft-IIS and the word "Worm" appear in close proximity, as
>    implying that the majority of Microsoft-IIS web servers are
>    vulnerable.
>
>    Although we do not have any directly observed information on how many
>    internet sites use RDS, the results we see on sites having their
>    security tested for the first time in our own [6]security testing
>    business indicate that the percentage of public Microsoft-IIS sites
>    using RDS is likely to be small.
>
>    Approximately 8% of Microsoft-IIS sites tested in 2001 had RDS open
> to
>    the public; in 2002 this has fallen to around 5%. This fall can be
>    largely explained by the gradual migration of sites to
>    Microsoft-IIS/5.0, where RDS is not enabled by default. Almost no
>    Microsoft-IIS/5.0 sites we have tested were offering RDS and the
>    proportion of Microsoft-IIS/4.0 sites offering RDS is fairly stable
> at
>    around one in four.
>
>    The caveats are that this is a small [hundreds of sites] and biased
>    [our customers are more likely to be running version 5.0 of
>    Microsoft-IIS than the internet as a whole] sample, rather than a
>    census, but we think that only a fairly small section of the
>    Microsoft-IIS community is likely to use RDS, and that it is rarely
>    enabled on public sites. Microsoft's security checklists and IIS
>    lockdown tool have long encouraged webmasters to disable RDS.
>
>
> References
>
>   1. http://investor.genuity.com/notice.cfm
>   2. http://www.l3.com/
>   3.
> http://investor.ft.com/custom/ftmarkets-com/news/story.asp?FTSite=FTMW&g
> uid={4E4F91D4-BC7D-421F-B7F8-F53448DC11BD}
>   4. http://www.microsoft.com/security/security_bulletins/ms02-065.asp
>   5.
> http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories.nsf/Business/FB9BAFE31
> FD76D3386256C780026E0AC?OpenDocument&Headline=Microsoft+flaw+could+let+h
> ackers+control+PCs,+servers
>   6. http://www.netcraft.com/security/
>
>
>
> Internet Research from Netcraft.
>
> Netcraft does commercial internet research projects. These include
> custom cuts on the Web Server Survey data, hosting industry analysis,
> corporate use of internet technology and bespoke projects. All of the
> data
> is gathered through network exploration, not teleresearch.
>
> sales@netcraft.com
>
>
> Network Security Testing from Netcraft.
>
> Netcraft provides automated network security testing of customer
> networks and consultancy audits of ecommerce sites, Clients include IBM,
>
> Hewlett Packard, Deloitte & Touche, Energis, Britannic Asset Management,
> Guardian Royal Exchange, Lloyds of London, Laura Ashley, etc.
>
>
> Details at http://www.netcraft.com/security/
>
>
> To unsubscribe from the Netcraft Web Server Survey Announcements list
> send the message
>
> unsubscribe webserver-survey
>
> to majordomo@netcraft.com
>
> To resubscribe send the message
>
> subscribe webserver-survey
>
>
>
> Mike
> --
> Mike Prettejohn
> mhp@@netcraft.com  Phone +44 1225 447500  Fax +44 1225 448600 Netcraft
> Rockfield House  Granville Road Bath BA1 9BQ  England
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Webmaster33 [mailto:webmaster33@bigfoot.com]
> Sent: 02 December 2002 04:34
> To: gui-dev@apache.org
> Subject: Re: The ways of combating M$
>
>
> >yes apache is stable and takes up less space but I doubt it could
> >handle many hits per second
>
> Is that true, that Apache can not handle so many hits/second like IIS? I
> searched for some performance comparison article,
> but there are not too much. Some of them:
>
> Apache 2.0 Beats IIS at Its Own Game:
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,3763,00.asp
>
> eWeek Labs preliminary tests of Apache 2.0 & IIS 5.0:
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,15300,00.asp
>
> Apache Avoids Most Security Woes (very interesting):
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1866,00.asp
>
> IIS: Stay or Switch?: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,40751,00.asp
>
> The Anatomy of a Frontal Assault on Apache: Microsoft's Web Server
> Strategy
> http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=1999-06-28-023-05-NW-SM
>
> How does Apache compare to other servers?
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/misc/FAQ.html#compare
> (It is outdated, the mentioned service is not working fine)
>
> M$ always produced big & slow applications. I do not think, that IIS can
>
> have higher performance, than an optimized Apache.
> Apache should handle more STATIC html pages per second, compared to IIS.
> The DYNAMIC page performance using Apache + script interpreter(Perl,
> PHP), is another thing, it can not compared to STATIC performance.
>
> Apache developer opinions?
> What is performance of Apache compared to IIS?
>
> Webmaster33
>
>
>
> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********
> On 2002. 12. 01. at 19:15 DaMouse wrote:
>
> >the user interface that comes with ApacheConf is lovely and if it was
> >added to the standard distribution could go along way, but another
> >thing that M$ gets better at is making there servers able to withstand
> >almost anything, yes apache is stable and takes up less space but I
> >doubt it could handle many hits per second my $0.02
> >
> >-DaMouse
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: gui-dev-unsubscribe@apache.org
> >For additional commands, e-mail: gui-dev-help@apache.org
>
> *********** END REPLIED MESSAGE  ***********
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: gui-dev-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: gui-dev-help@apache.org
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: gui-dev-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: gui-dev-help@apache.org
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: gui-dev-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: gui-dev-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message