What are the major differences between *nix and Win2000 web hosting?

trying to decide

[Marcia]

I have to recommend hosting for a client, and I'm trying to decide which hosting to recommend.

I've used Linux/Apache exclusively, but have found a host I'm interested in trying out that offers both, and I'm half tempted to recommend the Windows hosting just to give it an honest try. Besides, there are sites that need the proprietary Windows hosting functionality not provided with *nix hosting.

Any major differences or shortcomings? Any tips?

[toolman]

Windows is more of a pain with scripts that aren't asp. You don't have the familiar permissions and such. Really limits the functionality of a web site unless you use asp.

[DaveAtIFG]

In general, the SEs don't yet seem to rank .asp pages as well as .htm or .html pages. Also, finding "generic support" is more of a challenge. We get frequent questions re: IIS in these forums and, unlike Apache questions, we often struggle to answer them. You'll likely be much more dependent on your host's support staff then you would be with an Apache host.

[crash]

It really depends on what you need. If you plan on using something that requires Windows, then you don't really have a choice. If you don't plan on using asp or windows specific db functions then go with a unix type of server. They are usually more cost effective and less hassles.

[Brett_Tabke]

Also, speed has always been an issue on every iis server I've ever been on (many). That's not to say speed isn't an issue on *nix at times, but any type of heavy scripting can bring a win box to it's knees real quick. *nix will tend to smooth out those speed hits.

[bird]

This report is about a year old, so things may have changed slighty since (but I wouldn't expect any fundamental changes):

[heise.de...]

"To Be Up or Not To Be Up"
Analysis of Web Server Downtimes

C't is the leading german language computer related magazine (bi-weekly), at least on the competence level of Boardwatch in the US.

[littleman]

Excellent report.

I think a major thing to consider is the ssh connection. It has saved me many hours of paid server maintenance. As a small time server administrator of a few colo servers this has saved money and especially time.

...once [the administrator] had become aware of the problem - could resolve the problem from home with a shell login via ssh (secure shell). With NT, remote management of this kind is much more complicated and usually requires additional software.

This may be one of the reasons for the relatively high number of NT downtimes. An NT server administrator often still works directly at the console. Therefore, the NT administrator is still on his way or on the phone while his Unix colleague has long logged into his server via ssh and solved the problem.

Conversely, if you are a webmaster who is virtually hosting a site, having a *nix account with shell access vs. an NT account is like the difference between driving a car and riding on a bus.

[grnidone]

Tool is right about the scripts thing.

There are many scripts (perl, php, etc) for a Unix box, but just not as many asp scripts out there to choose from.

The IIs boxes I have worked with are a pain. Go with Unix.

-G

[txbakers]

As someone who is running a W2000/IIS web server, I'd say go with Unix also.

With Windows you're limited to ASP, although you can run Perl and CGI scripts, but setting permissions is a pain.

I've had much better success getting sites up and running on Unix boxes.

The user won't know the difference though. I went with W2000/IIS because I had it and didn't want to get another machine. But as I grow I'm probably going to switch over.

[Brett_Tabke]

That all said Marcia, the way prices are dropping on Win hosting is quite attractive. It is so easy for these large hosts to put up a box quickly and cheaply on windows. Once they buy the software, they can buy the box off the shelf at Walmart.

[rcjordan]

IIS has a lot more security vulnerabilities than other products and requires more care and feeding."

Analyst recommends switching from Microsoft's Web software to another product because of security concerns [nandotimes.com]

[TallTroll]

Most of it comes down to the competence of the server admin, and the amount of time he/she can spend looking after the beast. I know a guy who uses Win 2k/IIS servers almost exclusively. Hes got so good at looking after them, he has at least 1 with a years uninterrupted uptime (quite a feat on Windows!), and a recent hacker attack on the co-lo host succeeded in crashing about half of the *nix boxes there... but not his Windows box. It was cut off briefly whilst the server farm techs sorted things out, but it stayed up.

Hes also had no problems with security, because hes taken the time and trouble to learn how to do the admittedly very fiddly job of securing his servers correctly, and he applies patches as they become available, not when their lack becomes a problem.

Point is he's made the investment in Win, so thats what hes comfortable with. He'd find it a real pain switching to *nix. Depends what you know best, I suppose