On Friday, June 14, 2002, 11:07:24 AM, Brian McGarvie wrote: > Basically then there is no real reason for Apache over IIS on win2k server?
Not now Apache 2 is here. Apache 1.x has always been considered by the Apache group as beta code and therefore not suitable for use in a production environment. I have been using Apache 2 for development on Win2k since it was first released to the public and I will upgrade my public server as soon as PHP releases a production version of their module. I have IIS on the same server and have never had a problem with them co-existing. > With our leased line we aqquired 16 ips, so in the IIS config I would just use that >IP and keep it port 80? In the site configuration, click on the "Advanced..." button next to the IP address. Make sure that each entry has the IP address, port 80 and the host header set to the site domain name. > (I will read the manual, I will read the manual, I will read the manual!) A very good idea ;o) > SSL is a must for a few of the 'sites' that will be getting ran. As I said, I have not experience with SSL on Apache, but on IIS it is as simple as following a wizard. > I'm kinda trying to verify that using IIS with PHP isapi module is as secure as >Apache? A web server is only as secure as it's administrator is anal. I personally believe that IIS on Win2k can be made as secure as Apache on any platform, but not a lot of people agree with that. As for how secure PHP is, most of that will depend on the scripts rather than the server/PHP interface you're using. > Heres a strange one tho jist on the side: I installed Apache2/PHP on my own machine >(used for writing code etc) and copied the application to an apache location, and ran >it, but... there is > supposedly files missing according to apache, all is as on the other machine - >files/code wise. What files did it say were missing? Were they scripts, modules, what? > One last item I need some advise with... is IIS able to handle LOTS of sites accross >multiple servers? as we have lots of clients so in the future will possibly need a >machine to load-balance etc > and seperate database serving machines - databases primarily MsSQL/Access/MySQL. Again, here is where my experience falls short. I have not yet had a chance to be involved in a load-balanced project. However, I would expect that there would be little difference whether you implement it using IIS or Apache. > Btw, thanks Stuart, thats kinda making me feel easier about keeping it IIS. No problem. Don't get me wrong, I think the ?AMP combination (Linux/FreeBSD/etc, Apache, MySQL and PHP) is unbeatable as a server platform, but I strongly believe that, done properly, IIS on Win2k is still a strong platform. The problem is that MS have (purposefully) made IIS accessible to the average PC user which I think is one of the main reasons that it has *that* reputation. -- Stuart -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
