Re: Apache vs IIS
Yes, I need to continue using commercial certificates if at all possible - we've had them on the 5.1.2 and 6.3 mid-tiers since 2003, when we started using AREA authentication with enterprise passwords. We use OpenSSL and sTunnel on the back end to LDAP, although the 7.x servers finally use internal certificates properly so they are set to SSL in the AREA configuration. I put OpenSSL on the web server today while trying to generate the keystore - maybe that's the cipher suite the GeoTrust certificate did not like. Christopher Strauss, Ph.D. Call Tracking Administration Manager University of North Texas Computing & IT Center http://itsm.unt.edu/ > -Original Message- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William H. Will Du Chene > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 9:20 PM > To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > Subject: Re: Apache vs IIS > > Hhrrmm... That's a new one. I've personally never tried > importing certs into the keystore like that. I did some quick > digging around on the net, and discovered a couple of pages. > I am not sure if these will help or not, > but: > > http://www.agentbob.info/agentbob/79-AB.html > > Make sure to check the last comment about a code change. > Comments are on the bottom of the page. > > > > > errorjavax.net.ssl.SSLException: No available certificate or key > > corresponds to the SSL cipher suites which are enabled. > > java.net.SocketException: SSL handshake > errorjavax.net.ssl.SSLException: > > No available certificate or key corresponds to the SSL > cipher suites > > which are enabled. > > -- > - > Will Du Chene > - > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.myspace.com/wduchene > - > "...you're an anti-Microsoft zealot..." > - Norm Kaiser > - > > __ > _ > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" > > ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
Re: Apache vs IIS
I just checked over the page and realized that the commands listed there are for *nox boxes. If you need a hand converting them into a windows version, shoot me an email and I can lend a hand. Likwise, there is a version of openssl for windows available from http://www.devhood.com/Tools/tool_details.aspx?tool_id=277. If that one is not available, there is another download site at http://www.stunnel.org/download/binaries.html. -- - Will Du Chene - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.myspace.com/wduchene - "...you're an anti-Microsoft zealot..." - Norm Kaiser - ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
Re: Apache vs IIS
Hhrrmm... That's a new one. I've personally never tried importing certs into the keystore like that. I did some quick digging around on the net, and discovered a couple of pages. I am not sure if these will help or not, but: http://www.agentbob.info/agentbob/79-AB.html Make sure to check the last comment about a code change. Comments are on the bottom of the page. > errorjavax.net.ssl.SSLException: No available certificate or key > corresponds to the SSL cipher suites which are enabled. > java.net.SocketException: SSL handshake errorjavax.net.ssl.SSLException: > No available certificate or key corresponds to the SSL cipher suites > which are enabled. -- - Will Du Chene - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.myspace.com/wduchene - "...you're an anti-Microsoft zealot..." - Norm Kaiser - ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
Re: Apache vs IIS
I am finally getting back to this issue. Following your instructions gets a generic certificate on the server so that it will do SSL, but you get a certificate error every time you access the page. I have never gotten even close to that using the fragmented bits of information on http://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-5.5-doc/ssl-howto.html - but that may be because I have been trying to use a commercial certificate instead of generating a generic one. Thanks for your help with a much clearer set of step-by-step instructions (sequential; the tomcat docs are more random access). I already have a GeoTrust certificate for this server, installed on IIS months ago, so theoretically I should be able to apply it to the Tomcat server. I can't get another from them for the same FQDN, anyway, unless it has to be converted to some other format which I doubt. I followed the instructions on GeoTrust web on how to export the certificate from IIS and convert it for apache, which yielded two files key.pem and cert.pem. Of course that does not fit into Tomcat, only Apache. Next I followed their instructions (in a completely different part of their web site) for Tomcat which involve downloading a root cert and an intermediate cert and creating a keystore with those plus the purchased SSL cert. When I install that file the Tomcat server generates a bazillion copies of this error in the catalina log: SEVERE: Endpoint [SSL: ServerSocket[addr=0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0,port=0,localport=8443]] ignored exception: java.net.SocketException: SSL handshake errorjavax.net.ssl.SSLException: No available certificate or key corresponds to the SSL cipher suites which are enabled. java.net.SocketException: SSL handshake errorjavax.net.ssl.SSLException: No available certificate or key corresponds to the SSL cipher suites which are enabled. at org.apache.tomcat.util.net.jsse.JSSESocketFactory.acceptSocket(JSSESocke tFactory.java:113) at org.apache.tomcat.util.net.PoolTcpEndpoint.acceptSocket(PoolTcpEndpoint. java:407) at org.apache.tomcat.util.net.LeaderFollowerWorkerThread.runIt(LeaderFollow erWorkerThread.java:70) at org.apache.tomcat.util.threads.ThreadPool$ControlRunnable.run(ThreadPool .java:684) at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:595) Feb 7, 2008 7:24:36 PM org.apache.tomcat.util.net.PoolTcpEndpoint acceptSocket WARNING: Reinitializing ServerSocket I guess I will have to contact the certificate source directly and find out what they forgot to include in the instructions on the web site. Ultimately we do not want every user to have to fight their way past the bad certificate warning to get in. Christopher Strauss, Ph.D. Call Tracking Administration Manager University of North Texas Computing & IT Center http://itsm.unt.edu/ -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William H. Will Du Chene Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 11:37 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Apache vs IIS I never said "easy to administer." What I did say was "simple to configure." Obviously, there is some room for interpretation there. "...how the @()[EMAIL PROTECTED] do you get the damn thing to do SSL.." Fair question. It deserves a fair answer. Here is a tutorial that took me all of about 20 minutes to put together. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
Re: Apache vs IIS
I never said "easy to administer." What I did say was "simple to configure." Obviously, there is some room for interpretation there. "...how the @()[EMAIL PROTECTED] do you get the damn thing to do SSL.." Fair question. It deserves a fair answer. Here is a tutorial that took me all of about 20 minutes to put together. *Tomcat Install* 1. Download the installer from http://tomcat.apache.org. 2. Run the installer. 3. Agree to the license. 4. Choose your options. 5. Select an installation directory. 6. Select a connector port, username and password. (Add a password, accept default port.) 7. Select path to the correct JRE. 8. Press the install button. 9. Leave the "Run Apache Tomcat" option selected. 10. Press the finish button. 11. The service will start once the installer is closed. 12. Download the "administration interface" package. *SSL Keys* 1. Download and install the Java SDK - not the JRE. 2. Add the JDK /bin path to your path. (set PATH=C:\Program Files\Java\jdk1.6.0_04\bin;%PATH) 3. Issue the command "keytool -genkey -alias kameno -keypass password -keystore kameno.bin -storepass password" 4. Answer the following questions, or accept the defaults: What is your first and last name? [Unknown]: What is the name of your organizational unit? [Unknown]: What is the name of your organization? [Unknown]: What is the name of your City or Locality? [Unknown]: What is the name of your State or Province? [Unknown]: What is the two-letter country code for this unit? [Unknown]: Is CN=Unknown, OU=Unknown, O=Unknown, L=Unknown, ST=Unknown, C=Unknown correct? [no]: yes 5. Copy the kameno.bin file that was created and place it into the tomcat/webapps directory. 6. Open server.xml (tomcat/conf directory) in an editor. 7. Search for the connector description that sits on port 8443. It should be commented out. 8. Uncomment it by removing the "" which preceed and follow it. 9. Add the following lines to the description: keystoreFile="/webapps/kameno.bin" keystorePass="password" 10. Save the file and close it. 11. Stop Tomcat & Restart it. 12. Verify connectivity by pointing your web browser at https://localhost:8443. That was easy, yes? "...Plus everything you need for BMC ITSM installation wants to install its own instance of Tomcat..." & "...Then they all fight over the JVM..." Well, there I am not sure that I can help you. BMC has not gotten around to offering a - to borrow your term - @#*&@#*&# - developer-only version of their products yet, so trying to provide any practical assistance is out of the question. Not being able to play with the technology and learn from it without working for someone that already has it - bites. My gut instinct, however, says that there has to be a way to make it work. Sorry, I know that is not too much help. -- - Will Du Chene - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.myspace.com/wduchene - "...you're an anti-Microsoft zealot..." - Norm Kaiser - ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
Re: Apache vs IIS
If Tomcat is so "easy to administer," how the @()[EMAIL PROTECTED] do you get the damn thing to do SSL. That's about six mouse clicks in IIS, including the entire process of obtaining and applying the certificate. Nothing in what passes for documentation in the tomcat space clearly describes how to request and apply the certificate and turn on SSL, specifically on Windows servers (Win2K3 Enterprise x64). They frame everything in *nix terms, and the only *nix I allow anywhere near me is well hidden underneath OS X. I have no problems with editing configuration files versus clicking control panel checkboxes (they usually write out to config files in the background anyway), but getting a certificate applied to Tomcat is apparently not something you can do by editing files. I have tested IIS/ServeltExec and IIS/Tomcat compared to Tomcat/Tomcat, and the mid-tier runs best and pre-fetches the most reliably on Tomcat/Tomcat. Prefetch of the ITSM 7 application kills ServletExec 2/3 of the time, before the prefetch completes. IIS/Tomcat is a shotgun wedding with an extra component in the middle to degrade performance, but if I can't get some information on tomcat SSL we may be forced to use IIS/Tomcat. None of our web server administrators apparently know anything about Tomcat web server, and it is not the same as the Apache web servers they use. Plus everything you need for BMC ITSM installation wants to install its own instance of Tomcat (mid-tier, RKM, Crystal Report Server XI, also Kinetic if you have it too), or fight over the primary instance (SLM Collector - which you are better off using with ServletExec AS). Then they all fight over the JVM. It isn't just a simple IIS or Apache (or Tomcat) question, but how many of them and where to install them to support all of the different apps for ITSM+ without having them all stomp on each other. Christopher Strauss, Ph.D. Call Tracking Administration Manager University of North Texas Computing & IT Center http://itsm.unt.edu/ > -Original Message- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William H. Will Du Chene > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 8:07 AM > To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > Subject: Re: Apache vs IIS > > If I had my choice, I'd run with Apache - each and every single time. > > There are a number of reasons for that, not the least of > which is that the web server itself has been time tested and > beaten to death repeatedly on web servers all over the > internet. It has seen the best and worst that can be offered > by end users. It is the web server that can be thought of in > the same category as a work truck. It's good, solid, and gets > the job done. > > Configuration is also very simple. No. There isn't an > 'explorer' to do the job with eye candy and mouse clicks. > There is a configuration file, and a text editor. Really that > is all that is needed. If you've got something in front of > you that says otherwise, watch out. Someone is selling > something again. Shake their hand, complain of a meeting, > give them a boot in the wazoo and close the door. > > Apache is also cross platform, so your architecture has the > ability to expand and change platforms if your situation > changes at some point in the future. Likewise, there are > enough modules and methods of customization for it which give > it a significant amount of flexibility. > > Yes. You probably saw this one coming, but - if you want to - > the source code is available for review and not locked away > in someone's internal source server because it 'represents a > source of IP,' or because 'they want to ensure a significant > return on their investment for the shareholders.' (Jeez... > Just typing that makes me feel the need for a > shower.) > > Likewise, and this is probably my biggest single gripe > against IIS, is that the web server is *not* divorced > from the operating system that it sits upon. Thus, there is > no single installer or package available in which you can > install something like IIS 6 or IIS 7 on top of an older > operating system such as NT4. If you could, there would be > one less reason to upgrade, right? > > In the same train of thought, paint my hair blond and call me > silly but why, ohh, why should an operating system patch > affect a web server so that it causes it to crash because > both file system permissions have been changed and the > internet guest account gets messed up? We had that happen > with a couple of our intranet servers a couple of patch cycles ago. > Positively crap-tastic. (Yes. I actually maintain several IIS > servers for a living as part of my job - and I hate it.) > > An A
Re: Apache vs IIS
Just please, please...nobody start an "emacs vs vi" discussion. http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20080206&mode=classic J.T. -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William H. Will Du Chene Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 10:51 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Apache vs IIS Not quite... But that last one was so good, I added it to my sig file. > I love it, is it Friday yet? > > Axton > > On Feb 7, 2008 9:55 AM, Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CS/SCCE > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> So let me summarize: >> >> If you're an anti-Microsoft zealot, use Apache (or whatever the open >> source/competing product is) each and every time. >> >> But if you're not really concerned about all those politics, IIS is a >> fine choice for Windows operating systems. >> -- - Will Du Chene - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.myspace.com/wduchene - "...you're an anti-Microsoft zealot..." - Norm Kaiser - ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
Re: Apache vs IIS
Not quite... But that last one was so good, I added it to my sig file. > I love it, is it Friday yet? > > Axton > > On Feb 7, 2008 9:55 AM, Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CS/SCCE > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> So let me summarize: >> >> If you're an anti-Microsoft zealot, use Apache (or whatever the open >> source/competing product is) each and every time. >> >> But if you're not really concerned about all those politics, IIS is a >> fine choice for Windows operating systems. >> -- - Will Du Chene - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.myspace.com/wduchene - "...you're an anti-Microsoft zealot..." - Norm Kaiser - ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
Re: Apache vs IIS
I love it, is it Friday yet? Axton On Feb 7, 2008 9:55 AM, Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CS/SCCE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So let me summarize: > > If you're an anti-Microsoft zealot, use Apache (or whatever the open > source/competing product is) each and every time. > > But if you're not really concerned about all those politics, IIS is a > fine choice for Windows operating systems. > > -Original Message- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William H. Will Du Chene > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 8:07 AM > To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > Subject: Re: Apache vs IIS > > > If I had my choice, I'd run with Apache - each and every single time. > > There are a number of reasons for that, not the least of which is that > the > web server itself has been time tested and beaten to death repeatedly on > web servers all over the internet. It has seen the best and worst that > can > be offered by end users. It is the web server that can be thought of in > the same category as a work truck. It's good, solid, and gets the job > done. > > Configuration is also very simple. No. There isn't an 'explorer' to do > the > job with eye candy and mouse clicks. There is a configuration file, and > a > text editor. Really that is all that is needed. If you've got something > in > front of you that says otherwise, watch out. Someone is selling > something > again. Shake their hand, complain of a meeting, give them a boot in the > wazoo and close the door. > > Apache is also cross platform, so your architecture has the ability to > expand and change platforms if your situation changes at some point in > the > future. Likewise, there are enough modules and methods of customization > for it which give it a significant amount of flexibility. > > Yes. You probably saw this one coming, but - if you want to - the source > code is available for review and not locked away in someone's internal > source server because it 'represents a source of IP,' or because 'they > want to ensure a significant return on their investment for the > shareholders.' (Jeez... Just typing that makes me feel the need for a > shower.) > > Likewise, and this is probably my biggest single gripe against IIS, is > that the web server is *not* divorced from the operating system > that it sits upon. Thus, there is no single installer or package > available > in which you can install something like IIS 6 or IIS 7 on top of an > older > operating system such as NT4. If you could, there would be one less > reason > to upgrade, right? > > In the same train of thought, paint my hair blond and call me silly but > why, ohh, why should an operating system patch affect a web server so > that > it causes it to crash because both file system permissions have been > changed and the internet guest account gets messed up? We had that > happen > with a couple of our intranet servers a couple of patch cycles ago. > Positively crap-tastic. (Yes. I actually maintain several IIS servers > for > a living as part of my job - and I hate it.) > > An Apache/Tomcat combination is a beautiful thing. Why break them up and > try to install something like Atlanta in there anyway? Apache is best > suited to serve static content, such as images and regular files, html > docs and the like. Tomcat is best for JSP. The connector that bridges > them > together is conceptually a work of art. All major implementations which > I > have been a part always use this combination. IIS and Atlanta are left > to, > well, smaller installations and I honestly sometimes consider them - > ahem > - toys. (When something goes wrong, I can be seen headed into the IIS > server room with baby whipes, a warm bottle and a diaper, or a 40 > mega-joule crash cart depending...) Similarly, running Tomcat withouth > Apache in front of it just seems, well, wrong... but that is a whole > other > topic and I digress > > In the end, setting my obvious opinion aside for a moment, you may not > have the choice in the end. Your environment will most likely dictate > which platform to use, simply by the ability that is present to support > it. If you have a few good *nix people running around, chances are you > could make an Apache/Tomcat combination work just fine. Even if it is on > a > Windows platform, supporting the application is similar enough that the > skillset can be used. > > By the same token, if the current terrain in which you find yourself is > dominated by funny-lookin', primary colored flags on everything and > people > with a strange fixation on blue polo shirt
Re: Apache vs IIS
So let me summarize: If you're an anti-Microsoft zealot, use Apache (or whatever the open source/competing product is) each and every time. But if you're not really concerned about all those politics, IIS is a fine choice for Windows operating systems. -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William H. Will Du Chene Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 8:07 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Apache vs IIS If I had my choice, I'd run with Apache - each and every single time. There are a number of reasons for that, not the least of which is that the web server itself has been time tested and beaten to death repeatedly on web servers all over the internet. It has seen the best and worst that can be offered by end users. It is the web server that can be thought of in the same category as a work truck. It's good, solid, and gets the job done. Configuration is also very simple. No. There isn't an 'explorer' to do the job with eye candy and mouse clicks. There is a configuration file, and a text editor. Really that is all that is needed. If you've got something in front of you that says otherwise, watch out. Someone is selling something again. Shake their hand, complain of a meeting, give them a boot in the wazoo and close the door. Apache is also cross platform, so your architecture has the ability to expand and change platforms if your situation changes at some point in the future. Likewise, there are enough modules and methods of customization for it which give it a significant amount of flexibility. Yes. You probably saw this one coming, but - if you want to - the source code is available for review and not locked away in someone's internal source server because it 'represents a source of IP,' or because 'they want to ensure a significant return on their investment for the shareholders.' (Jeez... Just typing that makes me feel the need for a shower.) Likewise, and this is probably my biggest single gripe against IIS, is that the web server is *not* divorced from the operating system that it sits upon. Thus, there is no single installer or package available in which you can install something like IIS 6 or IIS 7 on top of an older operating system such as NT4. If you could, there would be one less reason to upgrade, right? In the same train of thought, paint my hair blond and call me silly but why, ohh, why should an operating system patch affect a web server so that it causes it to crash because both file system permissions have been changed and the internet guest account gets messed up? We had that happen with a couple of our intranet servers a couple of patch cycles ago. Positively crap-tastic. (Yes. I actually maintain several IIS servers for a living as part of my job - and I hate it.) An Apache/Tomcat combination is a beautiful thing. Why break them up and try to install something like Atlanta in there anyway? Apache is best suited to serve static content, such as images and regular files, html docs and the like. Tomcat is best for JSP. The connector that bridges them together is conceptually a work of art. All major implementations which I have been a part always use this combination. IIS and Atlanta are left to, well, smaller installations and I honestly sometimes consider them - ahem - toys. (When something goes wrong, I can be seen headed into the IIS server room with baby whipes, a warm bottle and a diaper, or a 40 mega-joule crash cart depending...) Similarly, running Tomcat withouth Apache in front of it just seems, well, wrong... but that is a whole other topic and I digress In the end, setting my obvious opinion aside for a moment, you may not have the choice in the end. Your environment will most likely dictate which platform to use, simply by the ability that is present to support it. If you have a few good *nix people running around, chances are you could make an Apache/Tomcat combination work just fine. Even if it is on a Windows platform, supporting the application is similar enough that the skillset can be used. By the same token, if the current terrain in which you find yourself is dominated by funny-lookin', primary colored flags on everything and people with a strange fixation on blue polo shirts and khackis, well, IIS & Atlanta may be your only choice because the point-and-click crowd is 'in the house' (Hey, did I get the reference right that time?). > Hello everyone, > > If you have to choose between IIS and Apache which one would you opt > for? I mean in term of ease of administration, performance, security .. > we are planning to install this in a clustered environment with load > balancing software and would like to know if you had issues if any with > running Mid-Tier against IIS or Apach
RE : Re: Apache vs IIS
thanks Kaiser Kaiser Norm E CIV USAF 96 CS/SCCE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : I think the answer all boils down to which operating system you're using. If it's Unix/Linux, go with Apache. If it's Windows, go with IIS. In my opinion IIS is easier to administer and it's rock solid. It just runs. -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wesley Schwengle Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 7:17 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Apache vs IIS On 07.02.08 10:48 Frex Popo wrote: > If you have to choose between IIS and Apache which one would you opt for? I mean in term of ease of administration, performance, security .. we are planning to install this in a clustered environment with load balancing software and would like to know if you had issues if any with running Mid-Tier against IIS or Apache? I would use Apache, since you can use this on both Windows and Unix. IIS is only available for Windows. And since we are running ARS on Unix, the choice is obvious. The great plus is that with using Apache is that you can change from a Unix to Windows (or vice versa) and keep your Apache configuration file. Some adjustments are needed due to different pathnames c:\path/to/dir vs /path/to/dir. And also modules which are loaded LoadModule mod_something.dll vs mod_something.so. But these changes are trivial. IMO Apache is easier to configure, but IIS admins might disagree on this. Cheers, Wesley ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" - Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
RE : Re: Apache vs IIS
Sorry Wesley ... just had lunch.. .and somehow started reading my email downward and missed this one :) Thanks for the comments. Wesley Schwengle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : On 07.02.08 10:48 Frex Popo wrote: > If you have to choose between IIS and Apache which one would you opt for? I > mean in term of ease of administration, performance, security .. we are > planning to install this in a clustered environment with load balancing > software and would like to know if you had issues if any with running > Mid-Tier against IIS or Apache? I would use Apache, since you can use this on both Windows and Unix. IIS is only available for Windows. And since we are running ARS on Unix, the choice is obvious. The great plus is that with using Apache is that you can change from a Unix to Windows (or vice versa) and keep your Apache configuration file. Some adjustments are needed due to different pathnames c:\path/to/dir vs /path/to/dir. And also modules which are loaded LoadModule mod_something.dll vs mod_something.so. But these changes are trivial. IMO Apache is easier to configure, but IIS admins might disagree on this. Cheers, Wesley ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" - Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
RE : Re: Apache vs IIS
..point taken ... I guess you should start publishing your work in a computer journal :-) This surely will come handy in the next few weeks in my "which one to go for debate" with the big boss. Many thanks dude. "William H. Will Du Chene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : If I had my choice, I'd run with Apache - each and every single time. There are a number of reasons for that, not the least of which is that the web server itself has been time tested and beaten to death repeatedly on web servers all over the internet. It has seen the best and worst that can be offered by end users. It is the web server that can be thought of in the same category as a work truck. It's good, solid, and gets the job done. Configuration is also very simple. No. There isn't an 'explorer' to do the job with eye candy and mouse clicks. There is a configuration file, and a text editor. Really that is all that is needed. If you've got something in front of you that says otherwise, watch out. Someone is selling something again. Shake their hand, complain of a meeting, give them a boot in the wazoo and close the door. Apache is also cross platform, so your architecture has the ability to expand and change platforms if your situation changes at some point in the future. Likewise, there are enough modules and methods of customization for it which give it a significant amount of flexibility. Yes. You probably saw this one coming, but - if you want to - the source code is available for review and not locked away in someone's internal source server because it 'represents a source of IP,' or because 'they want to ensure a significant return on their investment for the shareholders.' (Jeez... Just typing that makes me feel the need for a shower.) Likewise, and this is probably my biggest single gripe against IIS, is that the web server is *not* divorced from the operating system that it sits upon. Thus, there is no single installer or package available in which you can install something like IIS 6 or IIS 7 on top of an older operating system such as NT4. If you could, there would be one less reason to upgrade, right? In the same train of thought, paint my hair blond and call me silly but why, ohh, why should an operating system patch affect a web server so that it causes it to crash because both file system permissions have been changed and the internet guest account gets messed up? We had that happen with a couple of our intranet servers a couple of patch cycles ago. Positively crap-tastic. (Yes. I actually maintain several IIS servers for a living as part of my job - and I hate it.) An Apache/Tomcat combination is a beautiful thing. Why break them up and try to install something like Atlanta in there anyway? Apache is best suited to serve static content, such as images and regular files, html docs and the like. Tomcat is best for JSP. The connector that bridges them together is conceptually a work of art. All major implementations which I have been a part always use this combination. IIS and Atlanta are left to, well, smaller installations and I honestly sometimes consider them - ahem - toys. (When something goes wrong, I can be seen headed into the IIS server room with baby whipes, a warm bottle and a diaper, or a 40 mega-joule crash cart depending...) Similarly, running Tomcat withouth Apache in front of it just seems, well, wrong... but that is a whole other topic and I digress In the end, setting my obvious opinion aside for a moment, you may not have the choice in the end. Your environment will most likely dictate which platform to use, simply by the ability that is present to support it. If you have a few good *nix people running around, chances are you could make an Apache/Tomcat combination work just fine. Even if it is on a Windows platform, supporting the application is similar enough that the skillset can be used. By the same token, if the current terrain in which you find yourself is dominated by funny-lookin', primary colored flags on everything and people with a strange fixation on blue polo shirts and khackis, well, IIS & Atlanta may be your only choice because the point-and-click crowd is 'in the house' (Hey, did I get the reference right that time?). > Hello everyone, > > If you have to choose between IIS and Apache which one would you opt > for? I mean in term of ease of administration, performance, security .. > we are planning to install this in a clustered environment with load > balancing software and would like to know if you had issues if any with > running Mid-Tier against IIS or Apache? > > Many thanks > frexpopo > -- Will Du Chene [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.myspace.com/wduchene ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" - Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vo
Re: Apache vs IIS
If I had my choice, I'd run with Apache - each and every single time. There are a number of reasons for that, not the least of which is that the web server itself has been time tested and beaten to death repeatedly on web servers all over the internet. It has seen the best and worst that can be offered by end users. It is the web server that can be thought of in the same category as a work truck. It's good, solid, and gets the job done. Configuration is also very simple. No. There isn't an 'explorer' to do the job with eye candy and mouse clicks. There is a configuration file, and a text editor. Really that is all that is needed. If you've got something in front of you that says otherwise, watch out. Someone is selling something again. Shake their hand, complain of a meeting, give them a boot in the wazoo and close the door. Apache is also cross platform, so your architecture has the ability to expand and change platforms if your situation changes at some point in the future. Likewise, there are enough modules and methods of customization for it which give it a significant amount of flexibility. Yes. You probably saw this one coming, but - if you want to - the source code is available for review and not locked away in someone's internal source server because it 'represents a source of IP,' or because 'they want to ensure a significant return on their investment for the shareholders.' (Jeez... Just typing that makes me feel the need for a shower.) Likewise, and this is probably my biggest single gripe against IIS, is that the web server is *not* divorced from the operating system that it sits upon. Thus, there is no single installer or package available in which you can install something like IIS 6 or IIS 7 on top of an older operating system such as NT4. If you could, there would be one less reason to upgrade, right? In the same train of thought, paint my hair blond and call me silly but why, ohh, why should an operating system patch affect a web server so that it causes it to crash because both file system permissions have been changed and the internet guest account gets messed up? We had that happen with a couple of our intranet servers a couple of patch cycles ago. Positively crap-tastic. (Yes. I actually maintain several IIS servers for a living as part of my job - and I hate it.) An Apache/Tomcat combination is a beautiful thing. Why break them up and try to install something like Atlanta in there anyway? Apache is best suited to serve static content, such as images and regular files, html docs and the like. Tomcat is best for JSP. The connector that bridges them together is conceptually a work of art. All major implementations which I have been a part always use this combination. IIS and Atlanta are left to, well, smaller installations and I honestly sometimes consider them - ahem - toys. (When something goes wrong, I can be seen headed into the IIS server room with baby whipes, a warm bottle and a diaper, or a 40 mega-joule crash cart depending...) Similarly, running Tomcat withouth Apache in front of it just seems, well, wrong... but that is a whole other topic and I digress In the end, setting my obvious opinion aside for a moment, you may not have the choice in the end. Your environment will most likely dictate which platform to use, simply by the ability that is present to support it. If you have a few good *nix people running around, chances are you could make an Apache/Tomcat combination work just fine. Even if it is on a Windows platform, supporting the application is similar enough that the skillset can be used. By the same token, if the current terrain in which you find yourself is dominated by funny-lookin', primary colored flags on everything and people with a strange fixation on blue polo shirts and khackis, well, IIS & Atlanta may be your only choice because the point-and-click crowd is 'in the house' (Hey, did I get the reference right that time?). > Hello everyone, > > If you have to choose between IIS and Apache which one would you opt > for? I mean in term of ease of administration, performance, security .. > we are planning to install this in a clustered environment with load > balancing software and would like to know if you had issues if any with > running Mid-Tier against IIS or Apache? > > Many thanks > frexpopo > -- Will Du Chene [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.myspace.com/wduchene ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
Re: Apache vs IIS
I think the answer all boils down to which operating system you're using. If it's Unix/Linux, go with Apache. If it's Windows, go with IIS. In my opinion IIS is easier to administer and it's rock solid. It just runs. -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wesley Schwengle Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 7:17 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Apache vs IIS On 07.02.08 10:48 Frex Popo wrote: > If you have to choose between IIS and Apache which one would you opt for? I mean in term of ease of administration, performance, security .. we are planning to install this in a clustered environment with load balancing software and would like to know if you had issues if any with running Mid-Tier against IIS or Apache? I would use Apache, since you can use this on both Windows and Unix. IIS is only available for Windows. And since we are running ARS on Unix, the choice is obvious. The great plus is that with using Apache is that you can change from a Unix to Windows (or vice versa) and keep your Apache configuration file. Some adjustments are needed due to different pathnames c:\path/to/dir vs /path/to/dir. And also modules which are loaded LoadModule mod_something.dll vs mod_something.so. But these changes are trivial. IMO Apache is easier to configure, but IIS admins might disagree on this. Cheers, Wesley ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
Re: Apache vs IIS
On 07.02.08 10:48 Frex Popo wrote: If you have to choose between IIS and Apache which one would you opt for? I mean in term of ease of administration, performance, security .. we are planning to install this in a clustered environment with load balancing software and would like to know if you had issues if any with running Mid-Tier against IIS or Apache? I would use Apache, since you can use this on both Windows and Unix. IIS is only available for Windows. And since we are running ARS on Unix, the choice is obvious. The great plus is that with using Apache is that you can change from a Unix to Windows (or vice versa) and keep your Apache configuration file. Some adjustments are needed due to different pathnames c:\path/to/dir vs /path/to/dir. And also modules which are loaded LoadModule mod_something.dll vs mod_something.so. But these changes are trivial. IMO Apache is easier to configure, but IIS admins might disagree on this. Cheers, Wesley ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
Apache vs IIS
Hello everyone, If you have to choose between IIS and Apache which one would you opt for? I mean in term of ease of administration, performance, security .. we are planning to install this in a clustered environment with load balancing software and would like to know if you had issues if any with running Mid-Tier against IIS or Apache? Many thanks frexpopo - Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
