Comparing and Contrasting IIS and Apache Web Servers - Essay Example

Comparing and contrasting IIS and Apache web servers Web servers are important software for Web platforms. In today’s fast paced technological environment, two of the most popular and powerful web server solutions are Microsoft’s Internet Information Services, now known as IIS and the Apache HTTP Server, developed and maintained by the Apache Software Foundation. According to the November 2007 conducted by Netcraft Web Server Survey Apache’s market share has increased to 50.76%, a change of 3.03 over the previous month, while Microsoft’s IIS claimed 35.84%, a decline of 1.29% from October. While the debate over which server to use will continue, interesting similarities and differences are seen when comparing and contrasting these two platforms. Playing an important role in the development of the Web, Apache HTTP Server was originally established using core UNIX server code and released proper in April 2002. Developed by the not for profit Apache Foundation, it is freely available to the public as open source software who in collaboration with the developer is free to change and improve the program. The latest release for this program was in September 2007, version 2.2.6. Microsoft’s Internet Information Services however, is proprietary and based on a collection of services to other web servers. The current version for this server is 7.0. In terms of cost it is bundled with Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008. The execution environment of both these servers differ. Primarily, in the Apache server the core functionality of the system can be separated from the system that actually supports and processes requests. Relatively, IIS functioned as a Windows add-on and is now included with Windows Longhorn Server. Similarly in the use of an Intranet, IIS allows for user privileges to run upon each request. This integration bodes well for application server usage especially when drilled down to the database layer. However, in Apache this perspective is not present as it only creates files under different intranet users The dynamic components in relation to the servers’ environment have similarities. Both use Active Server Pages (ASP) for development which allows embedding in HTML pages. ASP which is widely deployed and supported has good development tools. It also is a fast and reliable solution for accessing databases. This in turn provides both systems to work with a range of languages such as Visual Basic, VBScript, JavaScript, Java, and C/C++. Moreover both servers also support the Java Server Pages model, which in turn is authorized by the class libraries of Java as well as Java Database Connectivity. Moreover between these two platforms migrating to most JSP applications can be achieved seamlessly. However, under IIS its Microsoft .NET environment, which provides for close levels of integration with .NET framework cannot be duplicated by Unix and is a drawback for Apache. Security in information technology is paramount, especially with regards to the Web. When comparing and contrasting both Apache and IIS, the former is considered to be secure and reliable as its foundation is Apache, Linux code and a file system. This enables closer binding to the systems administrator’s than the operation system (OS) in use. A weak link in IIS’s framework is the use of only one platform which is Windows. Moreover the interwoven link between Windows and IIS surfaces as further vulnerabilities in this program. In terms of authorization and access control Apache is flexible in that it uses basic authentication and administrator generated password files. IIS on the other hand requires a directory source in order to offer identification and authorization. Despite the above difference seen in the security of the two web servers their approach in some areas parallel. In relation to channel security or the use of Secure Sockets Layer (SSL), self signed certificates are supported in both platforms. Also in content access control both Apache and IIS appear capable in controlling this area. They also depend upon the web application to perform its own authorization services. When debating about performance, the potential capabilities of both servers come into play. Both severs offer somewhat similar performance features mainly in terms of using caches for Web content. The presence of in-memory and on-disk caches eliminates the need to send separate requests to a worker process. Also execution support both built-in and cached are facilities present in both servers. This intelligent caching of content also reduces the bandwidth required when sending this content. This enables quick execution of dynamic and static pages and markedly improves response time and performance. Apache and IIS also use the support of filters to further strengthening the support of programming languages. Required specifically for dynamic content, they allows the web servers to reverse the performance penalty of running external language interpreters to execute languages With regards to Management, the contrasts of these two systems are more apparent. Apache uses a simple text based method. The advantage of this file use is that sharing configuration between machines becomes a straightforward task. However, the downside of this is that the ability to corrupt a file also becomes relatively easy and manual configuration could also result in human errors and appear tiresome. For IIS on the other hand GUI-based configuration tools are required to manage this server. This is mainly through the Microsoft Management Console which is web based system equipped with a suite of command line tools to enable the changing of the configuration even while the system is running. This XML format allows for quick and simple sharing of configuration details between machines. Many users prefer this GUI centric technique for its consistent and ease of use. When comparing and contrasting these two servers, a feature argued is the regarding their stability. Adding fuel to this argument is the general viewpoint that Windows is not too stable when compared to Unix based operating systems. Moreover, Windows seemingly user-friendly interface could suggest that ill advised changes are easily created by a little experienced administrator. The flip side of this is that it can also be readily fine tuned and easily managed creating a somewhat reliable platform. However, in Apache a weak administrator can totally destroy the configuration of the server as little knowledge could be a dangerous commodity. To prevent such a situation, the platform can be both fool-proofed and bulletproof resulting in quality uptime when compared to an optimized IIS server. In terms of stability, Windows run IIS requires many reboots, this overtime however has been improved. Apache on the other hand is more equipped to such situations keeping inline with the high standards of Unix based operating system. Discussing the reliability of these two servers is a contentious issue. In relation to process thread management and controls IIS provides extensive management and control of requests. This server can compartmentalize applications enabling individual memory and execution space on making use of shared space of other application. In terms of reliability this feature is prudent as it signifies that when a problem is caused by an application, it ceases within the worker process thereby not affecting any other applications, more importantly it request processing core also remains unaffected in this process. Apache too handles process and thread management features with application isolation continuously being resolved. This is overcome through it repeatedly recycling components. In this instance, the core continues despite a failure taking place in any one of its components with Apache requiring a notional restart. Where as for IIS servers updates and improvements to the configuration made while the system is running. This is seamlessly occurs not affecting a users ability to access such changes. The issue of scalability is another important feature when comparing Apache and IIS. The latter scales somewhat respectably and supports clustering and symmetrical multiprocessing hosting a few of the largest sites on the Internet, such as dell.com, intel.com, nasdaq.com, and of course, microsoft.com. When compared, Apache on Linux does not scale very well, probably due to the limitations of Linux in enterprise computing. Moreover, it is not optimized to take advantage of faster, enterprise-class hardware. However, Apache can scale fairly well on more robust operating systems such as Solaris. Speed is another issue when discussing these two web servers. Though IIS serves up static documents faster, in terms of Common Gateway Interface or CGI, Apache on Linux performs well. This standard for interfacing external applications takes a sluggish and occasionally inconsistent turn when performing traditional CGI activity in IIS. Comparing and contrasting Apache and IIS provide interesting insights. Despite beginning as two very divergent platforms, today they appear with few differences. Both Apache and IIS have liberal licensing requirements, offer similar performance benefits, and are relatively simple to configure and manage. Moreover, a good systems administrator can successfully implement either server. Deployment costs cannot be ignored. Apache is free and can also be installed on systems which are also free such as Linux. IIS on the other hand is not and still on the surface more expensive than Apache. While the debate on which system is secure will rage, Apache will continue to excel at the goal it was designed for i.e for ease of use between different operating systems. Similarly, IIS, will continue on its path i.e. designed as a strong, stable, secure server for its own operating system. Table: Brief summary of differences and similarities in IIS and Apache IIS Apache Creator Microsoft Apache Software Foundation Cost (cost of ownership) Some payment required Free Software License Proprietary Apache License Version 2.2.6v September 6, 2007 7.0v Security SSL Basic Authentication Digest Authentication Active Directory Authentication Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Third party modules Performance In memory cache On disk cache Built in execution support Yes Yes Yes, with filters Yes Yes Yes, with modules Management Text file configuration Web-based management GUI-Based Management Yes, through XML Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Reliability Process/Thread Management Isolated Applications Live Configuration Editing Yes Yes Yes Yes Limited No Dynamic Components ASP CGI JSP .NET integrated Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Execution Environment Independent Request Handler Multiple Process Request Handlers Thread Support Yes Yes Yes Limited Yes Suitable OS required Works Cited Apache Software Foundation. Microsoft Internet Information Services homepage. Netcraft Secure Server Survey. November 2007. Netcraft. Retrieved on 10 December 2007. Read More