#1
  1. No Profile Picture
    Junior Member
    Devshed Newbie (0 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Posts
    18
    Rep Power
    0
    I was wondering whether the win32 version of apache, php, mysql etc is comparable to the linux versions in terms of security and performance etc?

    Do many people use a win32 apache setup for big websites or do they only trust Linux?
  2. #2
  3. No Profile Picture
    Member
    Devshed Newbie (0 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    28
    Rep Power
    0
    Most people only use win32 for development/testing and then upload to a linux or 2k/NT server. Big sites definitely wouldn't use win32, although there might be a few exceptions.
  4. #3
  5. No Profile Picture
    freebsd
    Guest
    Devshed Newbie (0 - 499 posts)
    >>Do many people use a win32 apache setup for big websites or do they only trust Linux?

    Big websites shouldn't use Linux anyway. A better choice would be FreeBSD or Solaris.
  6. #4
  7. No Profile Picture
    Gödelian monster
    Devshed Regular (2000 - 2499 posts)

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Posts
    2,307
    Rep Power
    62
    I agree. If your going with an open source *nix, make it FreeBSD.

    I haven't heard of ANY large websites using Apache on Windows; it's considered more of a learning utility than anything else at present. If you're stuck with WindowsNT/2000, though, you may as well use IIS with PHP. You'll get better performance than Apache/PHP on Windows. Maybe Apache 2.0 will change that, since they claim the Windows platform will no longer be regarded as an afterthough, but I wouldn't place any bets.

    The good thing is that PHP will pretty much work the same, except for some of PHP's Unix-specific functions.

    The security and stability of your Win32/PHP system is more related to Windows weaknesses than anything PHP is likely to do. But, remember PHP must be used carefully no matter what OS you use. For example, if you set up a script which takes in unvalidated user input and executes system commands based on it, then you're asking for trouble.
  8. #5
  9. No Profile Picture
    Junior Member
    Devshed Newbie (0 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Posts
    18
    Rep Power
    0
    I currently have a redhat 6.2 setup with apache, php4 and mysql. What you are saying is that it is better with FreeBSD instead of redhat? Could i have the same server setup using FreeBSD?
  10. #6
  11. No Profile Picture
    Junior Member
    Devshed Newbie (0 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere,in,UK
    Posts
    9
    Rep Power
    0
    RedHat is just a particular distribution of Linux. Same kernel and core with extra bundled apps. It's not a different OS, therefore your question has already been answered in that the guy said that FreeBSD is better for large scale sites than Linux.

    Secondly, yes, it's just the same to set up Apache, PHP, etc on FreeBSD.. at least if you use source tarballs.
  12. #7
  13. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    Devshed Newbie (0 - 499 posts)

    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Posts
    33
    Rep Power
    15
    If I am expecting 500 simultanious users. Is Linux 7.x, Apache, PHP, MySql combination O.K.? Since somebody has mentioned above that for large site one should use FreeBSD/Solasis. I was wondering whether this combination is O.K.
  14. #8
  15. No Profile Picture
    freebsd
    Guest
    Devshed Newbie (0 - 499 posts)
    Many people would say this is just a debate of apple or orange. Well, let's see what some expert says -> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconVall...6/yahoobsd.htm

    >>If I am expecting 500 simultanious users. Is Linux 7.x, Apache, PHP, MySql combination O.K.?

    That depends on many other factors like the type of hardware, location and etc.

    In my opinion, if you don't have any UNIX experience but consider yourself proficiency in win32, FreeBSD is not yet for you. Linux, specifically Redhat, is the very first stage for you to ditch M$ to enter to the UNIX/Linux world. If you insist to challenge FreeBSD and give it a try, it will cause you real troubles and frustration. If you are comfortable with Linux, capable of running it without X Windows for a while and get everything set up, then you may ready for prime time to try FreeBSD. I am not saying FreeBSD is less user-friendly but it's the fact that it has less documentation so you are pretty much on your own. So if you are such a person who likes to ask questions in the first place instead of spending time and effort to solve any problems yourself and always being to lazy to RTFM, then FreeBSD is also not for you.

    As for as the choice of Solaris is concern, I haven't had any experience with it. For performance standpoint, I do know that it needs pretty expensive hardware to run well and it's been proved by many others that Solaris doesn't run well on i386 comparing to FreeBSD.

    Just ask yourself a simply question whether your server is for expermental/development purpose or production purpose and how much UNIX experience you have and make up your mind you should go for FreeBSD or stick with Linux for this moment.

    [This message has been edited by freebsd (edited October 20, 2000).]

IMN logo majestic logo threadwatch logo seochat tools logo