Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 06:29:44 +0200 From: Cynic <cynic@mail.cz> To: rootman <rootman@xmission.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Justification for using FreeBSD Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20010615055641.03f5dba0@mail.cz> In-Reply-To: <01061421292700.00463@blackmirror.xmission.com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20010615015821.02135168@mail.cz> <5.1.0.14.2.20010615015821.02135168@mail.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 04:02 15.6. 2001, rootman wrote the following: -------------------------------------------------------------- >On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, Cynic wrote: > >-----------snip------------------------------------ >> >> IMO no list is a good choice for such a question. Anywhere you turn, >> 99.9% of responses will be biased. > >Indeed, at least the responses from the *BSD lists are BSD biased. 8^) what alternatives do you have when it comes to OS OS (Open Source Operating System)? Linux, which I don't take for really free (GPL), and which, IMO (YMMV) isn't developped, but instead grows randomly in different directions. ;) >> >The manager I had when I set up my FreeBSD box thought that what I had done was >> >great and was impressed with FreeBSD/Apache. I recently got a new manager who >> >doesn't know the BSD's from Open Source and wants me to justify why we need to >> >have two web servers instead of one and why we need FreeBSD/Apache. >> >> The work has already been done, and doesn't have to be done again. I think that's >> enough of an advantage, especially if it'd "be a lot of work". > >To some managers, assigning extra work and having thing's redone isn't an >issue because they're not the one's who do the actual work. They just delegate >what they think need's to be done and lose no sleep over it. I don't understand it. Below you write about emphasis on reducing costs... Recreating what already works just for the warm fuzzy feeling "all of our servers are [brand-of-the-day]"? How that translates into reducing costs? >> >Basically, she wants to know how FreeBSD/Apache compares to NT 4.0/MS IIS. >> >> Besides the obvious (FreeBSD & Apache are free, as opposed to NT & IIS), there is >> a few things to measure: Apache 1.3 (current production version [you might try >> 2.0.16 -- AFAIK that's what apache.org runs on]) on unices is process-based, while >> IIS is multithreaded. That should theoretically translate to better performance >> of IIS. BUT--but hardware is so cheap these days that this doesn't really matter, >> especially for intranet. Besides, one (several?) of memory managers in Apache 2.0 >> is multithreaded, turning this further into non-issue. >> What matters, is price of the software, and your manager should get ready to keep >> paying if your company goes the MS path: you get IIS (i. e. ASP) bundled with >> NT Server, but that's bare bones. Any and all functionality you could imagine >> exists almost solely in the form of commercial components. And if you ever decide >> to take the IIS to the internet, you have to pay MS again for an internet licence. > >Yes, it seems the greatest advantage of using FreeBSD/Apache are because they >are free. This rings especially important in lieu of the recent emphasis on >reducing costs in our office. If you're a manager and you're truly serious >about reducing costs, why would you not support a proven, reliable, popular >and FREE solution that FreeBSD and Apache offer? My company didn't even >pay for the copy of FreeBSD 3.4 that I currently have running on an old Compaq >Deskpro. It was my personal copy and the PC I installed it on was collecting >dust in one of our storage closets. > > > > >> >I really don't want to try to fight the battle of getting all of our intranet >> >content moved to FreeBSD/Apache. This would also be a lot of work, since a >> >lot of content is already in place on MS IIS. >> > >> >So, she also wants to know what the advantages/disadvantages would be of having >> >two web servers instead of one. >> >> Disadvantages: well, that depends on what content dwells on those servers, and if >> you might want to develop an application across the two servers. That might bring >> in minor problems, but with WDDX and stuff... I think it's ok. >> But I see disadvantages in IIS... I mean, you don't have to ditch it, but: >> >> If your company ever decides to develop an application, the difference in cost will >> be prominent. Besides the cost of software I've outlined you need to take into account: >> * support costs (I'm not aware of MS mailing lists like the ones provided by ASF, >> FreeBSD, or e. g. PHP Group) >> * development costs -- ASP developers are more expensive, because you cannot download >> the software and play with it at night; there's nothing to fill the gap between >> Access (ouch) and SQL Server which translates to Informix or Oracle in unix world, >> and Oracle developers, just like the SQL Server ones, aren't cheap >> * HR costs - people who work with MS products switch jobs more often (this has been >> covered in wininfo IIRC [http://www.win2000mag.net] recently) than the unix types > >Ok, this sounds logical. The only problem we've seen with having two web >servers so far, is duplication of content and this really isn't hardly an issue >and one that can be easily fixed. (Note: I haven't done this in practice, but it should work.) You don't have to duplicate any content, even with your current setup. Just do these two things: expose the content from Apache through Samba, and let the NT guy use the share as a virtual directory in IIS. If he alo shares the IIS webtree, you _should_ be able to get it served through Sharity Light. That way both servers should be able to serve each others content. >I plan to run a lot of web applications on FreeBSD/Apache. I plan to install >FreeBSD 4.3 on a new server and include the latest Apache, PHP and MySQL >for starters. I will also have Big Brother running on it to do our network >monitoring. Wouldn't it be better to serve content on one web server and >run your web apps on another? What do you mean? Like moving all the static pages to either of the httpds and developing only on the other one from there on? >Wouldn't this reduce the overall load on both >servers, instead of serving content and web apps on one? Not enough info. >I know that >FreeBSD/Apache could handle this easily but I don't know about MS IIS. Plus, >the UNIX version of Big Brother is free and you have to pay for the MS version. IIS isn't as crippled as you might think from the majority of opinions expressed on unix-related mailing lists. My experience shows that most people would rather die than admit something different from their favorite toy is ok (let alone a product of the Redmond Satan!). IIS is just a web server, it has good points and bad points. One of it's worst aspects is the fact that--since it's a "M$ crap"--it's one of the most popular targets, and... Have you noticed how loudly the unix mob "applauds" to every hole in anything from MS? however, it's quite different the other way around. apache.org has been breached. if I weren't subscribed to the new-httpd@ list, I wouldn't know. toye.php.net has been breached. If I weren't a PHP developer taking part in PHP's QA I wouldn't know. see my point? you can happily move any "legacy" content to the IIS box, using either shlight (Sharity Light) or mod_proxy (or mod_rewrite, if you wish so) to "hide" the IIS, and focus on FBSD/Apache. >> >I've already obtained some information from the FAQ at Apache.org and from >> >FreeBSD.org but I was wondering if anyone could provide any additional >> >examples, info or web sites I could check out. >> > >> >I need to be able to justify FreeBSD/Apache and the use of two web servers >> >or I'm afraid it will be "Bye Bye" for FreeBSD where I work. >> >> Is there any real need to move from one to another? > >Not to me. > >>Is the coexistence of IIS and Apache on your intranet source of any problems? > >Not really. Like I said before, the only existing problem is duplication of >content. See above. I don't have enough info to pretend being any authority, but there is quite a choice of ways to serve the IIS-based content through apache. no duplication. <snip> stuff I don't know </snip> >> You know (since we're talking intranet), if, for example, you company mandates >> iexplore as The browser, you _might_ be happier with IIS, because they account for >> each others bugs, while you could encounter glitches with the standards-focused >> Apache (although the Apache developers provide "hacks" like BrowserMatch for all >> browser bugs they encounter). > >Our company mandated browser is IE but so far, I haven't noticed any problems >while viewing the pages located on my FreeBSD box. Well, while very standards-focused, the apache developers know that a strict implementation would lead the popularity of apache south. :) they provide hacks, which are enabled by default. Of course, these are often minor problems showing up in border situations. Or you might not notice at all. (that is nothing to say about other browsers!) cynic@mail.cz ------------- And the eyes of them both were opened and they saw that their files were world readable and writable, so they chmoded 600 their files. - Book of Installation chapt 3 sec 7 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5.1.0.14.2.20010615055641.03f5dba0>