Is windows hosting any good, because some people have been saying yes and some no, is it more realiable than red hat 9?

Well windows is good for somethings and redhat is better for some...

There are many factors invovled in judging reliability.

Usually, a well administered windows box is very reliable. However, generally, a redhat box may be more reliable.

Both of them are capable of staying up for very long periods of time and doing what they are supposed to do.

depends on who you target as to which o/s you provide to your customers.
some customers will only want linux based hosting others windows only.

well win2003 is the best windows out there :-)
so if you have decied that you go windows - it is the right choice

Windows 2003 .net server is IMHO the best windows release, however you can't compare it with any *nix.

If an experienced admin sets up a windows server and a linux server the linux one will always be more reliable.

However if it's a crappy server admin, then both could be very unstable.

If an experienced admin sets up a windows server and a linux server the linux one will always be more reliable.Why?

no way - thats not true at all!!!!

Easy, because linux has a better memory/cpu handling, it's harder to have a program crash and will release resources faster as they are no longer in use.

What can you do in windows after "Explorer.exe has found an error and will be closed"?

In linux you do only need to reboot if you upgrade your kernel, on windows there are a lot of updates/upgrades that require a reboot.

What can you do in windows after "Explorer.exe has found an error and will be closed"?Restart Explorer, pretty simple.Easy, because linux has a better memory/cpu handling, it's harder to have a program crash and will release resources faster as they are no longer in use.I have not seen that problem with Windows 2000 or 2003.

I am not saying one is better than the other, each has it's own application.

to be honest i could rite about this all day..

functionality within windows beats any linux system full stop, stability is there within 2k3 in my opinion but ok linux can stnad up longer and recover its self better that windows.. but still not got the fcutionality..

support - your paying for something you dont way for at linux rates.. its just not the same.. community support to proper full on support.. what more can you ask for...

Actually, there is a patch somewhere that should allow you change kernels without a reboot.

Originally posted by SEATi
Easy, because linux has a better memory/cpu handling, it's harder to have a program crash and will release resources faster as they are no longer in use.

What can you do in windows after "Explorer.exe has found an error and will be closed"?

In linux you do only need to reboot if you upgrade your kernel, on windows there are a lot of updates/upgrades that require a reboot.

How long have you not used a windows?

This boy is talking about expirence on windows 98 people...

Windows 2000 and Windows2003 are rock solid, they are better than linux because most of the time they are much more easy to administrate than a linux server.

The big diference betwen both wold be that windows 2000/2003 works well it high loads and I can't say the same thing about linux.

Updates on windows 2000/2003 are easy easy and almost automated as on a linux machine you have to update every tool by hand our it a script.

The diference? Each has it's goals a hole on linux is much harder to use by a user than a hole on windows.

Windows has made some nice steps up in security.

Originally posted by RackMy.com
Restart Explorer, pretty simple.I have not seen that problem with Windows 2000 or 2003.

I am not saying one is better than the other, each has it's own application.

I would have to agree and I am not much of a windows fan. Windows 2k3 has come a long way and has been really stable for us.

We had some problems, when we first deployed a few W2k3 servers, where we'd get random hard lock ups. We thought it was a WinOS issue but later determined it was the anti virus software.

Like someone else said above, they both serve their purpose and have their goods and bads.

Sirius

Wow, now this was some interesting reading.

I don't believe one is harder to admin than the other if you know what you are doing on both. It comes down to knowledge of each OS. Sounds like there are some pretty heavy windows guys in on this one. ;) I have 13+ Years NT Admin Experience and about 2 with Linux.

What I have learned is this:

1. Using yum, apt, or up2date for RH distributions Linux is extremely easy to update and can be set to do most of it automated. But both windows and linux require certain items to not be updated except by hand depending on which control panel you run.

2. Currently administrating both linux and windows I have a different take on the load. I do not believe 2000 as a webserver, due to IIS 5.0, would handle the high loads as well as linux. Now, 2003 with IIS 6.0 is a different story. Here it becomes a battle of the beasts, apache/linux vs IIS 6 and 2003. They both handle loads well, both offer various throtteling abilities, etc... The only major problem I have with Apache that IIS 6 doesn't have is if a site goes Apache goes. I have yet to find a way around this. With IIS 6 if a site goes a site goes, the rest of the server continues to function properly.

3. As for which is easier to administrate, that comes down to your experience and knowledge. If you have worked with Linux for years, it will be easier, or if it was Windows it will be easier. I will say one thing. I grew up in the dos/basic/apple II E era. I have grown to like linux for the simple fact I feel I have more control. But that is a personal preference.

4. As for Windows or Linux being better, I believe today it is a matter of personal preference and skills. I do not believe either is better, but each has there own worth and value. Each offers different capabilities and different functions that the other does not offer. Also, some languages/software are native to each one that the other does not support as well, such as ASP on Linux or PHP on Windows.

Basically it comes down to knowledge and need as to the benefits of windows over linux.

Originally posted by SEATi
If an experienced admin sets up a windows server and a linux server the linux one will always be more reliable.

However if it's a crappy server admin, then both could be very unstable. Very well said, however it really depends on what your customers place on your server...

to be honest.. i really dont agree with you on this one.. linux might well be more stable in the long term on GENERAL use and does require less attention on secuirty for obvioius reasons but its just simple doesnt have the administrative functionality, and all round functionality that windows does...

windows run's asp and sql a lot better than linux, which i personlly dont think you can find the SQL databasing capabilities that windows has on ay linux set up...

all round windows is a lot better because it has all the latest features, linux is too stripped down for my liking.

What do you think of this setup for your basic Windows Hosting?

Server: Dual Xeon 2.8 GHz
Primary HDD: 120GB Hard Drive
Secondary HDD: 120GB Hard Drive
RAM: ECC Registered 1024 MB RAM
Bandwidth: 2000 GB Bandwidth
Uplink Port Speed: 100 Mbps Uplink
Operating System: Windows Server 2003, Standard
Control Panel: Plesk with PowerPack (Unlimited Domains)
Drive Controller: IDE
Chassis Control: IPMI

Thank you

ideal!! thats perfect! cant complain with that without a doubt... for a basic setup thats more than enough!!

very nice that, wouldnt mind a few of those myself :P
i am only using singles at the moment, looking dual raids for the short future

A linux box as a server would appeal more to me, not that I dislike windows in any way, but its easier to keep things plain and simple. What you are looking at is long term affects although both linux and windows operating server systems (on windows 2000 and 2003 server) are rock solid, windows tends to slow dowwn after a while when a good linux distro will not. Also at the moment Cpanel isn't available for windows I believe, so this puts a windows box totally out of the question.

cpanel might not be avaible today for windows but plesk is and I think plesk is a great CP and has grow from a little baby to a good CP as for ensim is the other away around.

For who sayd that linux is less admin. hours than a windows that's just wrong there are several tools for ISS6 that will block bug till you can patch your programs as for linux you can have filters butt that's not bullet prove it a bug.

Also it's nice to see that people due agree that linux is becoming abusolet tecnology and has to make a good ASP/NET version. (one that works)

As for SQL it would rather have a windows deal it this due to the fact that windows handle better high loads (cpu loads).

Originally posted by Salvatore
What do you think of this setup for your basic Windows Hosting?

Server: Dual Xeon 2.8 GHz
Primary HDD: 120GB Hard Drive
Secondary HDD: 120GB Hard Drive
RAM: ECC Registered 1024 MB RAM
Bandwidth: 2000 GB Bandwidth
Uplink Port Speed: 100 Mbps Uplink
Operating System: Windows Server 2003, Standard
Control Panel: Plesk with PowerPack (Unlimited Domains)
Drive Controller: IDE
Chassis Control: IPMI

Thank you

Was your ram a typo ? lol..... 1024MB for a windows? yeah that should due fine the first 50 client's (depending on each client).

Originally posted by BudWay
Was your ram a typo ? lol..... 1024MB for a windows? yeah that should due fine the first 50 client's (depending on each client).


Not at all and dont understand. You mean 1GB of ram is useless in a windows platform?

Have that in all my linux servers and no problems at all.

1GB should be fine. If you get some heavy traffic sites, then you may want to increase the ram.

Wow. Linux doesn't do SQL? http://www.postgresql.com/ http://www.mysql.com/ Both run on Windows and Linux but are native to linux and run better on Linux. Postgres actually directly competes in features with Microsoft SQL. MySQL 5 will put it on par with MSSQL 2000 but we will have to see what happens with 2005 (which isn't out yet).

As I said, ASP runs better on Windows. But PHP and Java Applications are native to linux and run better there.

For Administration I don't know of anything you can do on a windows box that can't be done the equivalent on a linux box.

So, as I said it is a matter of opinion.

1GB of Ram, depending on the control panel and type of sites, could probably handle 200 to 300 domains possibly more.

The setup you have listed is a good setup for windows if you either own the hardware or are with a Datacenter that will let you upgrade.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ddihosting
1GB of Ram, depending on the control panel and type of sites, could probably handle 200 to 300 domains possibly more.

Control Panel is Plesk with PowerPack (Unlimited Domains). I am used to cpanel so am a little unclear on the control panel to offer for windows. Basically I want something easy for me and the customer and secure.

Plesk offers excellent security. You would be best to do a search or just look in the control panel section of WHT. I did a lenghty one on why I like plesk.

I said 200 to 300 because out of 200 to 300 domains you will probably have a few that gobble resources. How you handle that is your decision. Usually it just means add a little more ram, but you may not want to do that.

Thanks,

got boxes using 1gb around that have 300+ domain on running HELM with win2k3 and they dont have a problem at all and thats heavy usage... seriously doesnt seem pushed at all..

Originally posted by ddihosting
Wow, now this was some interesting reading.
And that is one of the most balanced contributions I have seen anywhere on the Windows/Linux debate.

Most of the arguments IMHO are made by people who are well experienced in one system and not the other, and that to me is the most significant factor.

All my experience is with Windows in its various incarnations, Windows does everything I need, I know my way around it well so I can get the work done at the fastest rate.

I'm sure that Linux is a good OS but I don't really know and I don't really care, like most people, I'm just to busy earning a living to start all over with a new OS which is going to involve a new learning curve and is unlikely to increase my personal productivity in any significant way.

Originally posted by sologroup.net
to be honest.. i really dont agree with you on this one.. linux might well be more stable in the long term on GENERAL use and does require less attention on secuirty for obvioius reasons but its just simple doesnt have the administrative functionality, and all round functionality that windows does...


Yes, it has every administrative functionality, just without a crappy GUI that just takes too many system resources (I've benchmarked servers running Linux and Windows and found a noticeable difference in behaviour). You can run some nice services on a 1.2Ghz/256 RAM server under linux, I want to see you load windows 2003 on that box. :D


windows run's asp and sql a lot better than linux, which i personlly dont think you can find the SQL databasing capabilities that windows has on ay linux set up...


Hello.... ASP was developed by Microsoft, so it's obviously supported by Windows.

What about PHP? Perl? Java? Python? C? C++? CFM? All those languages run better on linux and PHP has about 300% more functions than ASP does.

SQL... if linux doesn't have SQL databases then what are mSQL, MySQL and PostgreSQL? As far as I know Linux doesn't support Microsoft's SQL server (also known as MsSQL) but that doesn't mean it doesn't support SQL, and just as an additional comment, MySQL has behaved better on benchmark tests than MsSQL, the only database system that has exceeded MySQL's features is Oracle.


all round windows is a lot better because it has all the latest features, linux is too stripped down for my liking.

Then you have to say "I prefer windows", as I would say "I prefer BSD" (I'm not a linux user/fan), but the main point was reliability and you might like it or not, but Linux is more reliable than windows.

Larry,
Your statements in regard to php and java are incorrect.

Firstly, java is alot more "native" to windows than to linux if you can even use that as factor in a comparison. From what I have seen, java performs as well if not better in windows when compared to linux.

As for php, I have not seen any figures that suggest better performance on linux when you use zend tools on the windows server.

There were certain applications that do not run well on windows. For example, until recently, postgresql did not work on windows without major ties to cygwin and alot of effort. But now, it seems they have released a beta that works quite a bit better.

asp and asp.net are done MUCH better currently on windows. The mono project is still underperforming in many areas and there is still work to be done on its incompleteness (it is making alot of progress and I look forward to it).

Of course, now a days, when companies have realized the size of the non-windows market, many of the applications that used to be available exclusively on windows have been released for use on linux. But in my experience, both platforms perform very well.

I never said ASP and ASP.NET run well on linux, actually I said the contrary.

As for Java, it was developed by Sun on a *nix platform. Do the research on the benchmarks and application usage and you will discover it is better supported on *nix.

As for PHP. You qualified it yourself "with zend". On *nix Zend is not required to optimize or fully run PHP. Although even with Zend if you do your research there are differences and functions that will flat not work on windows.

As for SQL (My and Postgres) again do your research on Benchmarks. The performance benchmarks show better performance on *nix.

The point I was making is that each platform has it's +'s and benefits. Windows runs ASP, ASP.NET, and MSSQL superbly and is the best platform for people choosing this hands down.

For people running PostgreSQL currently the best Platform would be linux.

For things like Java and PHP it would differentiate between what they need and what they want.

I do need to comment on CFM. ColdFusion does run better on Windows. First hand experience administrating servers in both linux and windows with both.

IMHO todays choice comes down the customers choice and what they want or need and where they feel that is best suited.

Both have there benefits and both have there flaws. Both products excel in areas where the others don't.

For a hosting company it would be best to go with what you know and provide it because you will get customers no matter which OS you choose to offer.

For a customer, I have yet to figure out how to read there minds. Some like windows and some like *nix.

Originally posted by ddihosting
For a customer, I have yet to figure out how to read there minds. Some like windows and some like *nix. And most of them probably don't give a s**t provided their website is doing what it's supposed to do :)

Please larry, provide me with the benchmarks that show java is faster on linux than on windows (preferably recent benchmarks).

I never made any claims of performance with regards to mysql and postgresql, I merely said they run on windows. The same cannot be said for MSSQL and linux. All major databases run on windows while the same is not true for linux. There is also a vast number of smaller databases that are created exclusively for windows (I dont know of too many for linux though there should certainly be some).

I would like to remind you larry, the on linux, mysql provides the intel compiled binaries (which mysql and intel calims are 20 percent faster) free of charge since ICC for linux is free, but in windows, you may have to compile them yourself.

Furthermore, Microsoft Sql Server is quite a capable database server which provides many features still lacking in mysql. This gap will be maintained for some time yet until mysql passes their 5.0 release (probably at the next version after 5.0.

This is a debate that is getting out of hand.

We are argueing over pointless items when it comes down to it. The reason MSSQL does not run on Linux is not Linux fault. The reason MySQL and PostgreSQL run on Windows is because they are open source products always seeking additional markets.

But that doesn't matter.

I thought I had closed my portion of the debate by saying that each has its benefits and flaws. And that each is a matter of where the hosts skill set lies.

And that no matter which OS a host chooses they will still gain customers if they do the rest of their business right.

I was not here to debate the entire subject. I simply wanted to put into perspective that in reality it is not which one is better than the other, but which one you know and which one can be provided to your customer with the greatest performance and stability based off of your skill set.

That is a great objective Larry.

What I was trying to do is give a correct impression of windows so that when a person is faced with the choice, he/she has accurate information to base their decision on.

For example, if you have an issue with cost your choice will probably be linux. If you have special needs that require modified software, your choice will probably be linux (though windows is getting just a tad better here)
But, for most things, either one will do. Over the recent year, I have seen no gaping hole in offerings from either side, nor have I seen a major defeciency for server applications. The problem is that alot of people think of windows xp when they are faced with windows 2003. What they need to realize that 2k3 is a different beast and contains much less weaknesses when used as intended.

Windows 2003 works good and many customers do like it so, if you want to get a cut off that piece, Windows 2003 is a must.

And getting back to the original question:

Originally posted by *************
Is windows hosting any good, because some people have been saying yes and some no, is it more realiable than red hat 9?

We have vast experience at admin on both platforms. Our finding on this is:

Windows tends to be a little more expensive in terms of project cost and the hardware needs to be a tad more powerful to acheive the same.

However, there is not enough in it to make an enterprise decision based on the differences. Training and familiarity of your target admins will be a significant point. If your skillset is windows admin then go windows, if its Linux, go linux. Neither just fall over for no reason so reliabilty is mainly down to the admin.

Hobbyists will choose Redhat Linux as there a free versions available, plenty of free support in the community and systems can be deployed on comparatively lower cost appliances.

What about PHP? Perl? Java? Python? C? C++? CFM? All those languages run better on linux and PHP has about 300% more functions than ASP does.Have you heard of .NET? :)SQL... if linux doesn't have SQL databases then what are mSQL, MySQL and PostgreSQL? As far as I know Linux doesn't support Microsoft's SQL server (also known as MsSQL) but that doesn't mean it doesn't support SQL, and just as an additional comment, MySQL has behaved better on benchmark tests than MsSQL, the only database system that has exceeded MySQL's features is Oracle.Where are the numbers to support that?

Where are the numbers to support that?

"Overall, Oracle9i and MySQL had the best performance and scalability (see charts, images 1 and 2 in slideshow), with Oracle9i just very slightly ahead of MySQL for most of the run"

"MySQL database server stands out as a winner. The MySQL server is presented as having the overall best performance and scalability along with Oracle9i. Also, the MySQL server excelled in stability, ease of tuning and connectivity.
"

"Of the five databases we tested, only Oracle9i and MySQL were able to run our Nile application as originally written for 8 hours without problems."
"The Oracle and MySQL drivers had the best combination of a complete JDBC feature set and stability."

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,293,00.asp

Database benchmarking :

http://www.eweek.com/slideshow_viewer/0,2393,l=&s=1590&a=23120&po=1,00.asp

http://www.eweek.com/slideshow_viewer/0,2393,l=&s=1590&a=23120&po=2,00.asp

http://www.eweek.com/slideshow_viewer/0,2393,l=&s=1590&a=23120&po=3,00.asp

http://www.eweek.com/slideshow_viewer/0,2393,l=&s=1590&a=23120&po=4,00.asp

Bottom line, MySQL is the best database on the market.

Originally posted by RackMy.com
Have you heard of .NET? :)Where are the numbers to support that?

www.mysql.com. If you are willing to pay (as you would with MSSQL) they provide telephone support.

www.redhat.com Again, if you pay, they will provide telephone support.

Bottom line, MySQL is the best database on the market.I think you should take a look at the graphs a bit closer.

Compare the following:

Graph 1 to Graph 3
and
Graph 2 to Graph 4

SQL working in a complete MS environment (.NET) out performs them all.

Graphs 1 and 2 were using bugging drivers

"Out of all the drivers we used, Microsoft's new JDBC driver had the most problems. It's still a beta driver in the form distributed on Microsoft's Web site, but it's not a new product per se, because it's based on code licensed from DataDirect Technologies Inc., which has had the leading third-party SQL Server JDBC driver for some years now.

Providing and supporting its own JDBC driver is a very welcome move, and Microsoft officials informed us last month that they had 70,000 downloads of the driver so far, so there is considerable customer interest in it. However, the driver, in both Beta 1 and Beta 2 forms (we tested both), has serious performance and stability problems.

Using the driver, we were unable to get more than about 200-page-per-second throughput, and the problem was clearly the driver—the database was only at about 15 percent to 20 percent CPU utilization at this load. The driver also has memory leaks: We could see on WebLogic's administration console that less memory was freed each time the Java virtual machine did a garbage collection. Because of these leaks, the Microsoft JDBC driver was unable to run for 8 hours straight. "

I would estimate that most develops who use MSSQL as the backend are using some type of ASP/.NET.

Even if I choose to run MySQL on my windows server 2003, will I get decent performance compared to running MS SQL? Asking since one of them is free ;)

-Jonas



Originally posted by ezCore
"Overall, Oracle9i and MySQL had the best performance and scalability (see charts, images 1 and 2 in slideshow), with Oracle9i just very slightly ahead of MySQL for most of the run"

"MySQL database server stands out as a winner. The MySQL server is presented as having the overall best performance and scalability along with Oracle9i. Also, the MySQL server excelled in stability, ease of tuning and connectivity.
"

"Of the five databases we tested, only Oracle9i and MySQL were able to run our Nile application as originally written for 8 hours without problems."
"The Oracle and MySQL drivers had the best combination of a complete JDBC feature set and stability."

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,293,00.asp

Database benchmarking :

http://www.eweek.com/slideshow_viewer/0,2393,l=&s=1590&a=23120&po=1,00.asp

http://www.eweek.com/slideshow_viewer/0,2393,l=&s=1590&a=23120&po=2,00.asp

http://www.eweek.com/slideshow_viewer/0,2393,l=&s=1590&a=23120&po=3,00.asp

http://www.eweek.com/slideshow_viewer/0,2393,l=&s=1590&a=23120&po=4,00.asp

Bottom line, MySQL is the best database on the market.

You will get pretty good performance.

Yes. MySQL runs very good in windows.

The only scneario I use Windows 2003 + MSSQL (Or anything else. Eg: MySQL) is when customer demands it :) otherwise I never use it :)

And of course, best of all MySQL it's free :) Even if you plan on having 100's of concurrent connection while mssql will cost you heavly.

Originally posted by ezCore
Yes. MySQL runs very good in windows.

The only scneario I use Windows 2003 + MSSQL (Or anything else. Eg: MySQL) is when customer demands it :) otherwise I never use it :)

So, what do you use instead - that is if you do :)

-Jonas

I have several dedicated servers running windows 2003 + helm + coldfusion + mssql + mysql and 1 dedicated server running windows 2000 server but I only have those so I don't loose market share and don't close doors to customers when they demand it.

Nevertheless, IMHO it's much more cost effective linux, more stable and there isn't anything you can do in windows that you can't do in linux cheaper and faster.

Since my experience is in the Windows-family, at least things would be faster for me - and cheaper ;)
Although thx for your opinion regarding the matter.

-Jonas

When I see benchmarks like that published I always find myself pulling up and saying, 'yeah, but hang on, did you use Stored Procedures, or Triggers....' That benchmark is not worth the non-paper it's printed on as not nearly enough information is provided to make an informed decision.

'yeah, but hang on, did you use Stored Procedures
Very good point. Running direct queries is one thing but utilising all the powerful features MS SQL has to offer is something else.

To the thread starter:
Do you have a specific use for yourserver? I mean is it to sell as a hosting service? or for a single website?

If you are thinking of offering a hosting as a service then your market will determine which one you go for and not some benchmarks from a website.

If you are asking because you want to host an application then the answer will be decided by your developer as they will likely have a preference or skills in one or the other.

Originally posted by ezCore
Bottom line, MySQL is the best database on the market.


I like MySQL and it has it's place but I don't think too many people would call it the "best database on the market." There's a reason why people still pony up for MSSQL and Oracle.

MySQL is by far one of the best databases on the market and you really can't compare it with MSSQL (MySQL is way better). You may compare it with Oracle still from my experience MySQL is still the best.

MySQL has the best performance compared with MSSQL and has equal performance of Oracle. It's easier to install than MSSQL and Oracle, it scales more than MSSQL and Oracle and it's cheaper than Oracle and MySQL.

There are several reasons why people choose MSSQL or ORacle rather than MySQL.

1) People don't know MySQL :)
2) Applications that they have don't work with MySQL or where not developed to work with MySQL and they demand MSSQL/Oracle
3) They already use MSSQL/Oracle and don't intend to switch it.

Nevertheless, IMHO MySQL is still the best. I am not shutting down the other DBS, I manage the other DB's also (Because I really have too)

But after all pros and cons about it. I have no dought MySQL is the best by far.

I disagree.

MySQL is a great product, free, stable, reliable, scalable, fast and probably more than enough for 90% of applications out there.
But there's a place for MSSQL. It's also stable, reliable, scalable and fast. On top of that it has many features that MySQL just doesn't have yet. Some of which are extremely important from a performance point of view.
I doubt there are many enterprize applications out there that don't use triggers or stored procedures, and for a reason. Why do you think MySQL are trying to add some of them in the next release ?

Bottom line, a MSSQL stored procedure will always outperform a MySQL direct query. It's like comparing a compiled language (C++) to an interpreted language (BASIC). And MSSQL applications that take advantage of that will always outperform a MySQL equivalent until MySQL can offer the same or similar rather nifty feature.

So while you say;
2) Applications that they have don't work with MySQL or where not developed to work with MySQL and they demand MSSQL/Oracle

There's often an extremely good reason for that.

MySQL has the best performance compared with MSSQL and has equal performance of Oracle. It's easier to install than MSSQL and Oracle, it scales more than MSSQL and Oracle and it's cheaper than Oracle and MySQL.Again, where is your data to back it up? MySQL does not out perform MS SQL in Windows environments.

RackMy.com is right when it says MySQL does not out perform MSSQL in Windows environments but MSSQL does not out perform MySQL (even in windows environment).


MSSQL stored procedure will always outperform a MySQL direct query

Incorrect. The use of stored procedure is way exagerated and it's not true that stored procedures in MSSQL are faster than direct sql statements in MySQL. I tell you even that MySQL direct sql statements are faster (I speak with knownledge).

I manage several web applications and even when using stored procedures with mssql it does not gain performance when compared to a sql statements on mysql using linux (Same hardware specs). This is specialy true when tables become bigger.

So while you say;
2) Applications that they have don't work with MySQL or where not developed to work with MySQL and they demand MSSQL/Oracle

There's often an extremely good reason for that.

Of course if a user is bound to a specific application and it only works with MSSQL, he will use MSSQL.

Nevertheless, that's doesn't mean that MySQL is better is 99% of the aspect when compared with MSSQL.

1) Cross Platform
2) Speed
3) Most Scalable Database Out there
4) Easy to use and install
5) Easy to manage and maintain
6) Free

And the argument of not having Stored Procedures it's just bull s*

PS: When SP come in next MySQL's next release (Stable release is going to be shipped later on this here). I want to see what anyone else is going to say. SP is just a fake argument to say MSSQL does things that MySQL does. We'll see then when the time comes what Microsoft has to say about this.

To conclude:

Webhostingtalk (biggest world wide hosting forum) runs on MySQL
Yahoo runs on MySQL
Google runs on MySQL

What better arguments do you need?

RackMy.com is right when it says MySQL does not out perform MSSQL in Windows environments but MSSQL does not out perform MySQL (even in windows environment).That is correct and incorrect at the same time.

MS SQL will out perform MySQL in an all Windows environment. Can you show us proof otherwise?

ezCore you appear to be pulling hard facts out of a magic hat ? How is WHT the bigest forum in the world? What makes it the biggest? the post count? the member count? or what?
You do not appear to have any hard facts to prove any of the statements you have made.
1 minute on google shows loads of forums that are very large, in fact heres one running on ASP that has 94,236,472 posts:
http://forums.facethejury.com/forum.asp

Im not trying to start a flame war here but you appear to be making things up as you go along? That is not good for people that are trying to actually get some decent information from this thread.

How is WHT the bigest forum in the world? What makes it the biggest? the post count? the member count? or what?
You do not appear to have any hard facts to prove any of the statements you have made.


I didn't said it was the bigest forum in the world, I said the biggers world wide "hosting" forum. It's a fact that webhostingtalk is the biggest forum for the hosting industry.

Im not trying to start a flame war here but you appear to be making things up as you go along?

I am not :) and I don't want a flame war here so I'm calling it off.

Everyone should draw the facts of either db's and use what they want :)

ah ok, i apologise if i misread your post (which appears to have been edited since :confused: )
Surely as an experienced developer though you cant deny that there are big pluses to Stored Procedures (taking lots of code away from the front end and having compiled queries).
No developer i have ever worked with has ever told me that is a bad point.

No. My Threads where not eddited. If they where you would see something like you did in your post.

Last edited by protecweb on 09-01-2004 at 10:27 PM

I am not flamming this any more cause it's been discussed all over the place and it won't get us anywhere :)

In my take I would say that win2k3 is jsut as good as linux.

In early post of this thread, someone mentioned that if one process fails it effects the system. That is true for all except win2k3, because a new system was built which contains the processes in their own memory blocks preventing them from exeeding. Also lagged programs recovered from not responding over tiem unlike previosue windows.

As for mysql, I would agree it is one of the best databases. MSSQL is more powerful but just doesnt compare because of its huge load on a system. Using MYSQL 5 is a bit of an overstatement cause its a alpha release and anythign can happen. MYSQL also rusn as good on a windows as a linux.

Control Panels, Technicly I dont use control panels..I made my own and use that instead. Plus it has nothing to do with anything.

Programming languages...In this case its ahrd to say. PHP I herd does run faster in linux due to apache being home to linux andbuildt in modphp. PHP having more functions then asp is a lie, ASP is more powerful, but at the same time more slow, less components and other things(runs faster on windows obiously). PERL is the language that I use and it works fine in both linux and windows. Windows is less strict on perl though.

For those that argue with IIS vs apache..if functionaily is in mind pay the 1,000$ to get a zenix webserver, its top of the line and garanteed.

You also can strip windows down to increase it performance and lock it down to modification sicne windows main projectory is its vulnrability to viruses and attacks. But when you get down to it any system can be hacked no matter how secure you believe it to be. The only full proof system would prob be one wich the owner cant even access...

linux vs windows is one of the futile struggle...Most ahtred of windows comes from the dislike of microsoft (I know i diliek them too). If you ask me though, win2k3 is just as a good option as linux.

About seeing windows run on a slower processor, you can strip it down too but let me ask you this..why? Its like saying what happens if the world is conqured by aliens the enxt day and we are all sold into slavery. Just get yourself a new host computer. 9/10 ppl run servers with 10X no 100X the resources they actually need. Not like you have a choice in the matter. Its ahrd to find a server with less then 1.2ghz these days.

Conclusion:
Just as many say go with what you know best. I'm jsut adding a fact to the story to back it up.

Hope this helps:)