|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
| |||||||||
 |
|
|
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
Dev Shed Forums Sponsor:
|
|
|
|
#1
April 24th, 2006, 08:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Is IIS really slower than Apache
We have a server with Microsoft Server 2003. We wanted to use Apache but, it seemed that we couldn't really use it with the other programs (control panels) that we wanted.
Are there problems with IIS that we should be prepared for.
|
|
#2
April 24th, 2006, 09:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I believe that script processing in IIS may be considered slower (although it's hard to compare). However, serving raw files (i.e. images, static HTML) is faster because IIS cheats and uses built-in OS features. On average I'd guess they're about equal in performance.
IIS shouldn't be too bad to set up for a newbie, as it's all GUI based. Obviously there may be some confusion understanding any IIS specific terms or concepts. Quote:
|
|
#3
April 24th, 2006, 10:22 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
# Jeremy Explain your problem instead of asking how to do what you decided was the solution.
|
|
#4
April 24th, 2006, 10:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm not sure where to find it, but I read an article that mentioned that. Basically it said that IIS uses an undocumented API call that copies data straight from disk to network in kernel mode.
Quote:
|
|
| Viewing: Dev Shed Forums > System Administration > IIS > Is IIS really slower than Apache |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
 |
|
|
Del.icio.us
Digg
Google
Spurl
Blink
Furl
Simpy
Y! MyWeb
Linear Mode
