IIS Vs Apache
NeWGeeK
I am planning to host two web sites on my pc at home. My OS is WinXP SP3 and
I am at crossroads if I should use IIS or Apache as a webserver deamon.
I am behind a router and a modem and therefore forwarding port 80/81 and
obviously having one public IP.
How can I have the two websites accessible from the Internet through this
connection? I want them to be accessible seperately from eachother each
having a unique address but stil pointing to the same IP. Also which is best
suited for this task...IIS or Apache?
Thanks a lot foe your help mates
John Elliot
depending upon the host name of the URL the server can direct the
request to a different site.
IIS has a GUI interface to do this while you will have to modify files
in case of Apache.
JE.
Grant Taylor
> Both IIS and Apache offers hosting for multiple website - meaning
> depending upon the host name of the URL the server can direct the
> request to a different site.
Um... It is my (mis)understanding that Windows XP Pro will not allow you
to have more than one web site. (I just double checked on my SP2
system.) Thus you will have to run something that allows you to have
multiple web sites.
So, I guess you are either running Apache or changing to a server
version of Windows.
> IIS has a GUI interface to do this while you will have to modify files
> in case of Apache.
Very true. Though WebMin makes things a lot nicer (than the static text
file(s)).
Grant. . . .
Sanford Whiteman
Wrong newsgroup, BTW.
> suited for this task...IIS or Apache?
Apache. IIS 5.1 (XP) does not support multiple started sites.
--Sandy
------------------------------------
Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist
Broadleaf Systems, a division of
Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc.
------------------------------------
Brian Cryer
"NeWGeeK" <teknol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23LkRlXN...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
If your website is going to run an ASP.NET site then you will want to use
IIS, but then you will only be able to host one site. Otherwise other than
the lack of a GUI interface, Apache is a much better all round product
(IMHO).
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian
Sanford Whiteman
> If your website is going to run an ASP.NET site then you will want to
> use IIS, but then you will only be able to host one site. Otherwise
> other than the lack of a GUI interface, Apache is a much better all
> round product (IMHO).
I don't think there's any reason to get into that debate one bit. The
simple fact is that IIS on XP does not observe Host: headers.
Sanford Whiteman
> How can I have the two websites accessible from the Internet through this
> connection?
The HTTP (1.1) Host: header allows the browser to send a hostname along
with a request. This hostname is usually used at the "point of entry" --
the web server daemon itself (IIS, Apache, etc.) -- to direct requests to
the corresponding virtual server before any more processing is done. The
answers to your question thus have assumed you want the web server to do
the "virtualizing" part, and on XP, only Apache can do this (w/IIS on a
Windows server OS, there's no such restriction).
The wider truth is that even if the web server daemon doesn't observe the
Host: header, it will not delete it, so your web application (PHP, CF,
ASP, ASP.NET) still has access to that information. It's trivial to
create a default page that redirects requests for site1.example.com >>
http://yourserver.example.com/site1, site2.example.com >>
http://yourserver.example.com/site2, etc. Of course, the cosmetic
appearance of the URL may be of concern to you, in which case this will be
unacceptable (the user will not see site1.example.com after their initial
hit). However, from a useability standpoint it may prove "good enough"
for you. [Note that on a server OS you can roll your own host header
handing all within PHP, ASP, etc., and the user will never know.]
Another option is to use a reverse proxy that observes the Host: header.
This allows you to use any web server behind it, regardless of whether the
web server knows or cares about the Host:. But you are probably not at
that level of technical understanding at this point. I include it only
for completeness.
Sanford Whiteman
> I include it only for completeness.
And should also include SAPI-level rewriting tools such as ISAPI Rewrite.
Bottom line is you have a lot of choices once you broaden the question
beyond native web server capability. But with the question as posted, the
only choice is Apache.
--Sandy
Ken Schaefer
You sure about that?
You can only run one website at a time. But if you configure it to listen on
a specific IP:port:hostheader combination, I believe it rejects other
requests.
Cheers
Ken
"Sanford Whiteman" <swhitemanlis...@cypressintegrated.com> wrote
in message news:op.uvzmi...@gw02.broadleaf.local...
Sanford Whiteman
> You can only run one website at a time. But if you configure it to
> listen on a specific IP:port:hostheader combination, I believe it
> rejects other requests.
You're right. But the daemon is incapable of returning different content
for different Host: headers; I guess you could say it is capable of
returning a 404 error page for unbound Host: headers, but that would
hardly match the OPs need.
Dave Marshall
a time, officially, but there is a workround.
(1) Create a virtual directory for your second URL
(2) On your host's DNS server create a URL (redirect) record that points to
the virtual directory you just made, and
a. make it cloaked
Now when people enter your second URL it will take them to the web page you
want them to see and the address field will never change. Your visitors
don't have to know they are at your old domain. You can use the document
settings in IIS to make the default document different for the different
websites (not necessray, but I like them to be different).
Dave
"NeWGeeK" <teknol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23LkRlXN...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...