Hello!

Can Linux hosts more websites than a same configured Windows 2003 server??

Regards,
Robert

Windows is an operating system that dedicated more RAM and CPU power to the actual operating system; on the other hand, Linux dedicated more RAM and CPU power to the services running on the server. Linux will be able to handle more because of the above stated fact.

If you look at it, Windows runs idle at 5% CPU usage and 50% of the RAM dedicated to the OS. Linux runs idle at 0% CPU usage and on standard machines 90% of the RAM is cached and ready to go.

the more important question is, what are you using the server for? unless you need specific components tied to windows servers then go with linux. these would be things like asp, asp.net, access/mssql databases, and 3rdparty components that are only available for use on windows servers.

in general if you are hosting simple, non-dynamic, html sites then linux would be the way to go no matter your budget, imho. although if you have no experience, or staff who knows linux administration, then you will want to use a windows server more than likely. this is also dependent on your support contract with your server provider.

You have to remember that Windows as a web server isn't for the weak either as it can be just as complicated, if not more, than Linux.

If you don't need Access/MS SQL, but you wish to use ASP (not .NET), the you can still go via Linux. mod_asp and Chili!Soft ASP are two solutions for your needs on a Linux-based environment.

Edit: I just need to comment on how many nights I set smashing my head against my keyboard while trying to setup DNS and IIS via Windows. There are so many options and conflictions that happen it isn't even funny. :uhh:

I agree with Graham, taking on server adminstration no matter what flavor of OS is not an easy job. My best advice would not worry about squeezing the most sites out of a single server, rather look at what you actually need to do with the server, see who around you can provide help with both options, and ask your server provider their recommendations as well.

lots of research, trial and error on a non-production server(s), and development of your business ideas may be what you want you want to focus on before making your final decision.

First, lets figure out which would be the best for you. Do you like working through program wizards which make config files for you by asking you questions about it, or do you like being able to say exactly how you want it done?

With Windows, you'll spend more in wizards clicking the next button while in Linux, you'll spend more time typing out configs exactly as you want them.

So, the question is: Which do you prefer? We will work from there.

Windows looks easy but it is not easy.
Linux loos difficult, actually fact yes it is not easy.

Server OSs are easy to setup but each requirements a lot of efforts and expertise to master them.

With a Windows 2003 Server (not Windows 2000) properly configured and maintained, it's my opinion that it could host more sites thank a Linux box. Microsoft actually did SOMETHING right with the new OS, gave it reliability. Isolating sites into their own application space actually works good in 2003, where it did NOT in 2000.

My only beef with WIndows is the fact that your uptime can only be as far out as the next MS patch. If it weren't for installing patches, I could easily get over a year of uptime out of one with a ton of busy sites on it.

Now please don't get into your typical 16 year old kid rant about Linux is better than Windows.. blah blah blah.. There is seriously no point to arguing which is better. It's "which is better for YOU", not for everyone.

Just as a note for ajarvey: some of those "typical 16-year-old rants" actually have some merit. I may not be 16, but that can be taken kind of offensive.

Now, on the topic side of this: ajarvey is right; it isn't which is "best" rather it is which is best for you.

Lets all just work this out and see which is best for him. My last post is step one: see which he prefers most.

People use windows for web servers :eek:

Linux will handle loads better then any windows server, no matter how many "studies" that microsoft funds that say otherwise.

although windows is getting better, i wouldnt trust it in mission critical (hosting other peope's sites) environments. it can be quite a hassle at times to administer as well (possibly more break-fixing at times, patching, having to reboot, etc.).

linux is the way to go. the stabiilty of unix, and versatitility of a modern server OS.

Originally posted by Jakiao
mod_asp and Chili!Soft ASP are two solutions for your needs on a Linux-based environment.


just an NB: ChilliSoft ASP is now called 'SunONE'. Don't ask me why :P

Really? If it's just as expensive as ChilliSoft ASP, then it's all the same to me.

Did SunONE add anything useful to the ASP install for Linux?

I really want to use asp.net on windows 2003.
But I don't know whether it performs well under heavy loads...

a linux server is better overall.

I not sure. To answer need know all tasks and software run on server.

I've had Windows 2000 Servers with Dual PIII700mhz and 512MB RAM with SCSI RAID1 behind a hardware firewall run for 2-3+ months before rebooting for a Windows Update! Back then I was putting about 50-100 websites on the boxes - and they ran IIS,DNS,Access,SQL,FTP and custom components with ASP and had no troubles.

My new 2003 servers are Dual P4 2.8ghz, 2GB ECC RAM, RAID1 and RAID5 machines - and I'm ready to put 500 sites on them now that SQL is offloaded, etc.

We have used Linux machines in the past - and almost switched! But the complexities of migrating 100's of sites over to a linux based solution when all the sites have .ASP, SQL, Access and Microsoft based DLL files became an overwelmingly rediculous idea! (Especially with SUN's ASP solution costing more then the Windows 2003 Operating System!)

Even after 10 years with Windows machines i find Linux easier than Windows when it comes to webhosting.

^ Hehe. On the flip side, I've been hosting on Windows platform servers since NT3.51 and NT4 Beta and find Windows easier.

Actually, I find neither platform difficult - BUT I find Windows easier to recover from a major distaster :) Then again - I didn't grow up with a linux desktop either.

ADDED: Actually, if I was going to host non-Windows - I would use FreeBSD ;)

I really want to use asp.net on windows 2003. But I don't know whether it performs well under heavy loads...

IIS 5 and IIS 6 will perform very well under heavy load if installed on adequate hardware and tuned properly.

I have pushed 400+ Mbps through a single nic on a 24x7 basis using IIS 5.

Personal max uptime on netcraft: 495 days on IIS 5, until someone accidentally unplugged the server while rearranging hardware, at least he owned up to it

:rolleyes:

Current uptime: 195 days.

win2003 and linux are now neek to neek... ISS6 is very very fast and stable a serius webserver would be zeus does are stable as a rock and handle well high loads.

So I would say.... do a test run for a couple of mo. see what your going to offer and than open up. :)

But need know - viruses and worms for windows - 90%, for linux few tens. And for recovery in linux just need have list of software, configs ( as text files) and content.
But for recovery windows need configure software as new. And of course, Windows request more money. As example, you forgot pass:
Linux: DC admin choise single mode, change you pass, and reboot.
Windows: DC admin need tool to pass recovery. It tool have some money. Then, you will pay. And pay. And more more pay for tools.
In linux this tools free.

May be LongHorn server will be more robust in the future..

Hi,

Linux servers are better because it uses only Charactor User Interface but the windows servers uses Graphical User Interface. It is a known fact that GUI needs powerful hardwares but on the other hand linux uses low hardwares and will give more output. For example if you go for http://rpmfind.net site you will find the lines given below,

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is powered by Linux. This is not a 100.000 $ machine but rather a noname standard machine assembled from various pieces, there is just more disks hooked to it than a desktop machine. You can get more informations and pictures (but slightly outdated).

The machine runs Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS, on a cheapo Athlon XP with 512MB of RAM. The I/O system is made of a 3Ware card with 8 Maxtor IDE drives (for a total of 10 drives in the box).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by robert668
I really want to use asp.net on windows 2003.
But I don't know whether it performs well under heavy loads...

Then you have to use 2003. It does perform well under heavy loads. Better than Linux? Who knows, it depends on the load, but IIS is MUCH improved in 2000 and 2003. There are some registry settings you may have to tweak for big loads and Microsoft documents these on their site.

The fact that Windows is a GUI OS is relevant in only one respect, that the OS needs more memory to load. After that, it doesn't matter because neither Apache or IIS have a UI, they just read and write disk files and http. Memory is cheap.

Mark

Windows is relatively bulky and the OS itself uses a boat load more resources than Linux. Therefore gonna have to say Linux byfar.