Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 10th Apr 2006 20:53 UTC, submitted by gubol123
Microsoft "Microsoft gained nearly five percent market share in the Web server market, however still lags well behind market leader Apache, research and security firm Netcraft said Friday. Nonetheless, it was the biggest one-month swing in the history of the industry. With more than 80 million Web sites on the Internet, Microsoft now claims a 25.2 percent share, up 4.7 percent from March. Apache still leads by a wide margin, however it was down close to 6 percent to 62.7 percent. Sun remained a distant third, down slightly to 2.36 percent."
Order by: Score:
A big blip?
by moleskine on Mon 10th Apr 2006 21:29 UTC
moleskine
Member since:
2005-11-05

I read somewhere that much of this swing was a single large client - Go Daddy, I think - switching to Win2k3. So while it has been a good month for Microsoft it doesn't necessarily mean that the trend for them will continue. Microsoft will claim it is evidence of a clear trend, I expect, but this jump in share could be a bit of a one-off.

Reply Score: 5

RE: A big blip?
by sappyvcv on Mon 10th Apr 2006 22:12 UTC in reply to "A big blip?"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

I doubt GoDaddy is even 0.1%, so it is significant.

Reply Score: 1

RE: A big blip?
by Bado on Mon 10th Apr 2006 23:17 UTC in reply to "A big blip?"
Bado Member since:
2005-07-06

Godaddy's change was only for parked domains, not for all of the web sites hosted by them.

Still though, that's a whole lot of web sites that would now report as Win, instead of *nix, even though the "site" is just placeholder pages.

Reply Score: 1

Insanity?
by leech on Mon 10th Apr 2006 22:29 UTC
leech
Member since:
2006-01-10

After having administered both Apache and IIS, I must say that it would be pure insanity to run IIS. It has more bugs than a town slut. Not to mention just about every time there is a security update, the whole system needs a reboot.

IIS may be ok in a single server set up, but in a cluster, you've just got a cluster **** waiting to happen.

It's ok though, at least the IIS admins aren't going around and beheading people, or generally running amok. Yet ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE: Insanity?
by sappyvcv on Mon 10th Apr 2006 22:32 UTC in reply to "Insanity?"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Mind giving some examples? Or are you just going to be vague and hope everyone believes you?

Also, IIS6 has had very very few security issues.

When's the last time you ran IIS?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Insanity?
by leech on Mon 10th Apr 2006 22:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Insanity?"
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

When was the last time you ran an update that didn't ask to reboot?

Easy example, you have a cluster of three IIS servers running. Suddenly one hangs. Instead of reporting that it has hung, and then the cluster dropping it as it should until the administrator can restart it, IIS will just keep hanging until it completely makes your website unavailable. Yes, even if the other two are running fine, one of them will take it down. Kind of defeats one of the main reasons of a cluster, doesn't it?

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Insanity?
by sappyvcv on Mon 10th Apr 2006 22:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Insanity?"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Well that may be true, I'm going on your word alone here.

Before now, I've heard nothing but good things about IIS6.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Insanity?
by BluenoseJake on Tue 11th Apr 2006 15:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Insanity?"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Sounds like the cluster was misconfigured to me

Reply Score: 1

RE: Insanity?
by jayson.knight on Mon 10th Apr 2006 22:58 UTC in reply to "Insanity?"
jayson.knight Member since:
2005-07-06

Pure insanity? If you're running asp.net applications, it's your only choice. Also, if you're running an IIS cluster, you should definitely be running Application Center on top of that...alleviates all the issues you just mentioned. A recent gig I worked had a 4x4 cluster, and each month we had > 99% uptime with IIS6.

As far as bugs in IIS6, there have been virtually none, which is a lot better than can be said for it's predecessor. That being said, anyone still running IIS5 is definitely insane ;-).

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Insanity?
by MastaShake57 on Mon 10th Apr 2006 23:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Insanity?"
MastaShake57 Member since:
2006-04-10

Dude, have you EVER worked on AC2KSP2 before? Do you know how much WORK it is to keep it running at 99%?

And, just to let you know, it is WEAK when it comes to detecting hung IIS systems. Considering that I've been administering 3x3 AC2KSP2 clusters for well over 3 years now. Woah, the trifecta.... Not to mention the botched PerfDLLs it causes when "it feels like it".

Now, all is not a crap-fest with AC2KSP2. When it does work, it works like a CHAMP. Content Management is pretty easy, managing servers via the GUI is pretty sweet, Health monitors are helpful and the CLI is damm friendly to a *nix aficionado like myself.

Granted, AC2000SP2 is much more stable, MS support for it is next to nothing. The only support I've seen is from some MS dude called "George Chen". He seems to be THE ONLY DUDE supporting that beast.

Now, with 2K3, NLB is MUCH, MUCH nicer. And I do agree with a previous poster, you are Nucking Futs if you're running on IIS5.

While I'm ranting.... anyone heard on the newer version of AC? Just wondering...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Insanity?
by jayson.knight on Mon 10th Apr 2006 23:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Insanity?"
jayson.knight Member since:
2005-07-06

Heh, I'll give you that...we had a dedicated IIS admin who took care of our 4x4 cluster, meaning he was there 40 hours a week monitoring/tuning/etc. Not the entire 40/wk for IIS, but most of it. That being said, w/o AC2K it would have been much more of a nightmare (these clusters supported 10 LOB apps w/ > 5000 concurrent users hammering them all day long).

To answer your question, all of the AC2k capabilities are being rolled into Vista Server: http://www.microsoft.com/applicationcenter/evaluation/roadmap.mspx. Which of course means A) no additional licensing costs and B) that there will be plenty of new features.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Insanity?
by MastaShake57 on Mon 10th Apr 2006 23:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Insanity?"
MastaShake57 Member since:
2006-04-10

Nice setup, but you had a dedicated IIS admin., lucky you. I AM the IIS admin. along with many other hats. In any event, it is a good product, just badly supported. I hope that changes with Vista.

Anywho, Apache is, and will be, the king of web serving no matter what MSFT does. How could you NOT, I mean, Apache is FREE!

Edited 2006-04-10 23:48

Reply Score: 2

why don't we wait...
by eantoranz on Mon 10th Apr 2006 22:38 UTC
eantoranz
Member since:
2005-12-18

Why don't we just wait till next month's statistics to see if it's a trend? I personally find that laughable.... but I'm willing to wait that much to see the "trend" flatten.... but that's just a hunch.

I wonder if microsoft will make such a buzz in the news in case it stalls. ;-)

Reply Score: 1

RE: why don't we wait...
by sappyvcv on Mon 10th Apr 2006 22:48 UTC in reply to "why don't we wait..."
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Who claimed it's a trendy?

Where did Microsoft make a buzz?

Reply Score: 1

YEAH!! WHOOOP!
by Milo_Hoffman on Tue 11th Apr 2006 02:02 UTC
Milo_Hoffman
Member since:
2005-07-06

Congrats Microsoft, you finally broke 25% marketshare!


Of course you had to buy that marketshare since no one would use your shit on their own, but hey it still counts...sort of.

Reply Score: 1

CONGRATUALTIONS TO MS!
by Anon on Tue 11th Apr 2006 02:10 UTC
Anon
Member since:
2006-01-02

ROFL. Congratulations to MS for their increased 'market share' of the 'sites that are nothing but parked domains' market.

Nothing is better suited than IIS to handle millions of parked domains. Now, if this survey were talking about real web sites that would be different.

Reply Score: 1

RE: CONGRATUALTIONS TO MS!
by gonzo on Tue 11th Apr 2006 02:49 UTC in reply to "CONGRATUALTIONS TO MS!"
gonzo Member since:
2005-11-10

Nothing is better suited than IIS to handle millions of parked domains. Now, if this survey were talking about real web sites that would be different.

And how many of those Apache hosted sites are just parked domains? None? Yeah, right.

On the other hand, IIS has above 50% of the web server market among Fortune 1000 companies. Those are.. well, Fortune 1000 companies and hardly not real web sites. (According to port80 survey).

Please, quit trashing Microsoft and Windows even when they are doing good. It just shows how biased you are. This is hardly bad news for them.

Just for the record: I don't want to say that Apache is poor server (no one sane will say that) but it looks like Windows server is good choice too.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: CONGRATUALTIONS TO MS!
by segedunum on Tue 11th Apr 2006 10:41 UTC in reply to "RE: CONGRATUALTIONS TO MS!"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

On the other hand, IIS has above 50% of the web server market among Fortune 1000 companies. Those are.. well, Fortune 1000 companies and hardly not real web sites. (According to port80 survey).

On the flip side of course the web sites of Fortune 1000 companies hardly make up most of the real websites, and they're a drop in the ocean compared to the real content on the web if truth be told. The port80 survey was simply a response from Microsoft to cover up their woeful overall share of the web. They probably did a study that tried to take out parked domains first, and then realised that they were still miles behind :-).

A one month swing of five percent is pretty suspicious. Any swing from Netcraft cannot be taken at face value at all, whether for IIS or Apache. No one decides to switch thousands of web sites, or create new ones, in a month. Now if IIS manages to maintain that increase month on month over the next year, as Apache has done over the years, then there might be some truth in this. As it is, it just seems like something pretty desperate has been going on.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: CONGRATUALTIONS TO MS!
by Ookaze on Tue 11th Apr 2006 12:16 UTC in reply to "RE: CONGRATUALTIONS TO MS!"
Ookaze Member since:
2005-11-14

And how many of those Apache hosted sites are just parked domains? None? Yeah, right

What's your point ? Go there : http://www.netcraft.com/ .
The April survey is right there, with the survey of *active* sites.Apache is still king in the active sites survey, with a lesser decrease in active sites (2,32 %) and a far less important increase for IIS (less than 1 %). They even explain that that's Go Daddy's change that drove the IIS increase.
Comparing the two market share (active sites and total sites) tells you that yes, lots of Apache sites are parked domains, but Apache is still king with nearly 2/3 of active web sites.

On the other hand, IIS has above 50% of the web server market among Fortune 1000 companies. Those are.. well, Fortune 1000 companies and hardly not real web sites. (According to port80 survey).

And active sites are hardly not real web sites.

Please, quit trashing Microsoft and Windows even when they are doing good. It just shows how biased you are. This is hardly bad news for them

Agreed, it's just consistent with how MS deals with FOSS : buying competition.

Just for the record: I don't want to say that Apache is poor server (no one sane will say that) but it looks like Windows server is good choice too

At least IIS does not seem like a good server when MS has to buy people for them to install it, or when you install it for parked sites, which are not active sites.
This MS buyout happened before, this is not news. The Go Daddy's change is not news either.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: CONGRATUALTIONS TO MS!
by BluenoseJake on Tue 11th Apr 2006 16:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: CONGRATUALTIONS TO MS!"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I am not sure where you are seeing a buyout, or what information you have to back up your assertion that they are just parked sites, or that MS has "bought out" anything. If you don't want to attribute the increase to win2k3 and IIS uptake, find some facts to back up your assertions

Reply Score: 1

Question...
by kaiwai on Tue 11th Apr 2006 03:06 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

All very nice, but what is this based upon? number of servers? number of servers and sites? how about whether the site is operational rather than simply the domain name registered, and a server saying 'underconstruction'.

Reason why I ask this is; lets say Microsofts market share drops BUT at the same time, Microsoft releases an ultra stable and secure server, so that leads to companies consolodating their servers - has Microsoft market share actually decreased?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Question...
by joshuap on Tue 11th Apr 2006 03:19 UTC in reply to "Question..."
joshuap Member since:
2006-03-01

"Reason why I ask this is; lets say Microsofts market share drops BUT at the same time, Microsoft releases an ultra stable and secure server, so that leads to companies consolodating their servers - has Microsoft market share actually decreased?"

Don't worry - I doubt we'll ever be faced with such a situation. "Ultra stable" and "Microsoft" in the same sentence is funnier than Paris Hilton's acting...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Question...
by kaiwai on Tue 11th Apr 2006 04:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Question..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Don't worry - I doubt we'll ever be faced with such a situation. "Ultra stable" and "Microsoft" in the same sentence is funnier than Paris Hilton's acting...

Or Paris Hilton and the concept of decorum - something that she lacks, or as he ex-boyfriends family said, "she is far too common" - describes my sentimant in one statement.

Reply Score: 1

Lies, Damn Lies...
by jayson.knight on Tue 11th Apr 2006 03:26 UTC
jayson.knight
Member since:
2005-07-06

and statistics. You know what they say.

The problem with netstat is that they only monitor outward facing websites (and of course don't have the ability to monitor sites inside the LAN). For every fortune 500 company that has 1 outward facing website, they have hundreds of internal sites that who knows what they run on.

Having worked for several of these firms, I can (with a quite a bit of certainty) say that Apache is rarely used inside the LAN (I'm willing to bet that > 90% of Apache use is by hosting companies, namely due to the fact that there aren't any licensing costs associated with it...they save tons of money this way).

The 3 major players are BEA/IBM/MS (weblogic/websphere/IIS). Apache is a complete joke outside of LAMP, and I've never even heard of an IT project (of any substantial size) calling for Apache. It has it's place on the web, but where it really counts (IT), it's non-existant.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Lies, Damn Lies...
by segedunum on Tue 11th Apr 2006 08:46 UTC in reply to "Lies, Damn Lies..."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

(weblogic/websphere/IIS)

Yay. And I know lots of companies that are just thrilled by the reliability of that combo ;-).

Many companies of the size of a Fortune 500 have tried to run their application server stuff with IIS, and they've failed miserably.

Apache is a complete joke outside of LAMP

If a company is using Java and J2EE and they want the thing to stay up, as most large companies do, then they'll be running it on some sort of Linux or Unix cluster if they have two brain cells to rub together. Apache in combination with their Java server is the only option they can use here.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Lies, Damn Lies...
by Ookaze on Tue 11th Apr 2006 12:26 UTC in reply to "Lies, Damn Lies..."
Ookaze Member since:
2005-11-14

Having worked for several of these firms, I can (with a quite a bit of certainty) say that Apache is rarely used inside the LAN (I'm willing to bet that > 90% of Apache use is by hosting companies, namely due to the fact that there aren't any licensing costs associated with it...they save tons of money this way)

Having seen the Web Application Firewall (WAF) market skyrocket in the past years, I can tell you a lot of those companies use some. And guess what is the server they use in most of them (be it appliances or software addon) ? Yes, Apache ! So Apache is actually far more used than you even understand.
Do you know the number of appliances (most running Linux, Apache, ...) needed to secure even an Intranet with IIS servers ?

The 3 major players are BEA/IBM/MS (weblogic/websphere/IIS)

Major players in what ? Stop the BS please.

Apache is a complete joke outside of LAMP, and I've never even heard of an IT project (of any substantial size) calling for Apache

You're just a clueless guy spreading FUD. The "complete joke" is used in lots of security products based on Linux, or in appliances.
Big reverse proxies, caches, clusters (farms), are based on Apache. These are pure big IT projects. But you'd have to actually work in these types of environment to know.

It has it's place on the web, but where it really counts (IT), it's non-existant

Yeah of course. Remove Apache, and most of the sites reported as having IIS web servers will just stop working, because of all the Apache (proxies, appliances) needed to secure them.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Lies, Damn Lies...
by LanRx on Tue 11th Apr 2006 15:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Lies, Damn Lies..."
LanRx Member since:
2006-02-22

Weblogic and Websphere aren't even the same kind of engine as IIS, with the first two being application servlet engines (a la Tomcat) and IIS being pure HTTP (a la Apache). So, how can MS be a major player in one of the few markets that they don't actually have an entry in?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Lies, Damn Lies...
by sappyvcv on Wed 12th Apr 2006 00:44 UTC in reply to "Lies, Damn Lies..."
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Excuse me? While I usually defend Microsoft, your comments about apache are bullshit.

I presume by LAMP you mean small projects, because of course anything using apache is very likely to use Linux, mySQL and PHP.

Where I work, we use apache for everything. And trust me, it's no small setup. We develop and host sites for every major cable broadband provider in the U.S. besides comcast. You think that's small change? It's not.

While I don't think apache is anything special security wise, to say it's a joke.. is a joke itself. You really need to look around more.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Lies, Damn Lies...
by jayson.knight on Wed 12th Apr 2006 00:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Lies, Damn Lies..."
jayson.knight Member since:
2005-07-06

A joke inside of corporate IT. Perhaps too strong a word, but all of the large companies I've done contracts for have minimal Apache implementation for large applications...it's all BEA/IBM/MS (and a previous poster said that IIS isn't an applications server, which isn't exactly correct, it's most definitely an app server).

I'm not discounting Apache for what it is...a nice webserver which is free, but like I stated, I've rarely seen it used for large scale mission critical business applications. Sure, I'll look around some more though ;-).

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Lies, Damn Lies...
by sappyvcv on Wed 12th Apr 2006 07:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Lies, Damn Lies..."
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

I work in corporate IT, and it's not a joke.

While I'm not discounting IIS6 at all, because I think it's a huge improvement over IIS5, apache is used in "mission-critical" environments and is not considered a "joke by everyone in IT".

Reply Score: 1

I wonder....
by vegburner on Tue 11th Apr 2006 09:12 UTC
vegburner
Member since:
2006-01-10

I wonder how much GoDaddy paid for that switch. They had a working infrastructure based on Apache, and they switched to an expensive alternative without apparent reason. Either MS is providing the software for free (and even this should not be enough for them to switch) or... I dunno.

Reply Score: 3

Sooo..
by junior on Tue 11th Apr 2006 20:28 UTC
junior
Member since:
2005-07-07

This PR stunt doesn't differ much from how Microsoft usually does business.

No surprises

Reply Score: 1

RE: Sooo..
by sappyvcv on Wed 12th Apr 2006 00:36 UTC in reply to "Sooo.."
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

PR stunt?

BetaNews posted this as an announcement from NETCRAFT.

Not Microsoft.

Do you understand?

Reply Score: 1