Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×
The Internet Apache

Apache Web Server Share Falls Below 50 Percent For First Time Since 2009 303

darthcamaro writes "Apache has always dominated the web server landscape. But in August, its share has slipped below 50 percent for the first time in years. The winner isn't nginx either — it's Microsoft IIS that has picked up share. But don't worry, this isn't likely a repeat of the Netscape/IE battle of the late 90's, Apache is here to stay (right?)" The dip is mostly the result of GoDaddy switching to IIS from Apache. Which is to say GoDaddy hosts a whole lot of sites.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apache Web Server Share Falls Below 50 Percent For First Time Since 2009

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 12, 2013 @07:44PM (#44547529)

    ..another reason not to host on godaddy.

    • by CFD339 (795926)
      You needed one other than the hostile upsell pressure virtually every where they touch?
  • GoDaddy IIS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by naubrey (1452173) on Monday August 12, 2013 @07:46PM (#44547553) Homepage
    Which is to say that GoDaddy hosts a lot of *parked* domains on IIS.
    • Re:GoDaddy IIS (Score:5, Informative)

      by Manfre (631065) on Monday August 12, 2013 @08:04PM (#44547697) Homepage Journal

      Which is to say that GoDaddy hosts a lot of *parked* domains on IIS.

      ...which were previously served using Apache. None of these stats will ever be able to convey the usefulness of site content based upon web server software.

      • by Trepidity (597)

        You could look at what the share is among the top N domains, for N=1000 or N=10,000 or whatever, at least as a sanity check.

        • by t4ng* (1092951)
          ...or better yet, analyze each home page, if it has no links to other pages within the same web site assume it is a parked domain (or spam domain) and ignore it.
        • by Sir_Sri (199544)

          That's not necessarily a good metric either, as systems built for that amount of traffic are not necessarily indicative of what is suitable for the rest of us. That's sort of the formula 1 versus a regular driving vehicle problem.

    • Which is to say that GoDaddy hosts a lot of *parked* domains on IIS.

      Honest question: Why did they switch? I have never understood why anyone would use IIS, and always assumed ISS users were clueless newbies. So why would GoDaddy go to the time and expense of switching? What do they gain?

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by LoRdTAW (99712)

        Simple: asp.net. Plenty of half assed coders out there can, with little effort, build a website using Visual Basic or C#.

        • by kasperd (592156)

          asp.net

          That's really no reason to move customer domains. As a customer I'd immediately leave a provider, which moved my domains to a new platform without asking me first. Customers that want asp.net should have to choose so on their own. The only way you could suddenly move a lot of sites from one platform to another without breaking something would be if they didn't need any server side scripting in the first place.

          It could be done with parked domains. But why would you want to do that (except as a mark

          • Simple reason really. Microsoft serves static pages faster than Apache and scales better under this scenario. It allows Go Daddy to park more sites on the same host, which then saves them money.

        • by csumpi (2258986) on Monday August 12, 2013 @09:11PM (#44548231)

          Simple: asp.net. Plenty of half assed coders out there can, with little effort, build a website using Visual Basic or C#.

          Sounds like a great accomplishment and major win for Microsoft.

        • by smash (1351)
          Other types of web developer are exceedingly rare.
        • by siride (974284)

          I don't know how you can say this when the primary language for dynamic sites run by Apache is PHP, which is mountains of shit worse than C#.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by whoever57 (658626)

        Honest question: Why did they switch?

        My WAG is that MS threw a bunch of money at Godaddy, not directly, you understand, but indirectly.

        Furthermore, my conjecture is that MS is prepared to throw this money at Godaddy because Microsoft's share of sites was looking rather sad (3rd place for market share of active sites last month).

      • by raymorris (2726007) on Monday August 12, 2013 @09:44PM (#44548463) Journal
        A while back Microsoft was paying hosts and registrars with large numbers of domains parked, or $30 / year type, to switch over.
        I don't know if that program is still active.
      • Honest answer: Because IIS serves static pages faster than Apache does so they can park more domains on the same hardware. With the amount of domains they park, it's not an insignificant difference.

      • by rtb61 (674572)

        It was a huge M$ marketing stunt at the time. Why the switch because it was profitable to do so. Now the real question is about market share. Should the Go Daddy site plus all the web sites it servers be considered one site in terms of choice of server to in reality more effectively measure choice by people who actually administer web sites. It seems at the very least two sets of statistics should be presented to more accurately show choices made.

      • by Bert64 (520050)

        If you look at the netcraft graph going back several years, you will often see significant bumps in share either for or against IIS. Several of these are down to MS paying large hosting providers to put their parked sites on IIS for promotional reasons.

  • Hmm (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Tailhook (98486) on Monday August 12, 2013 @07:53PM (#44547617)

    The statistical effect of millions of empty, neglected GoDaddy hosted sites will not ultimately mean a great deal. It does raise a question for me, however; what benefit does GoDaddy hope to realize with IIS? My last contact with IIS was about 9 years ago. At that time it was fragile, insecure and plagued with mysterious "metabase" corruption problems. The thought of using such a thing for large scale hosting seems absurd and I've ignored it ever since.

    Has it since improved enough to entice really large operations?

    • by ackthpt (218170)

      No doubt it has improved, but it's still a PITA to work with. I have to work with it now and really miss Apache.

    • Re:Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)

      by loufoque (1400831) on Monday August 12, 2013 @08:01PM (#44547675)

      IIS runs on Microsoft Windows.
      GoDaddy administrators do not have the skill to manage Linux boxes.

      • by kasperd (592156)

        IIS runs on Microsoft Windows.

        Apache runs on Windows as well, so this is no reason to choose IIS.

      • Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)

        by readingaccount (2909349) on Monday August 12, 2013 @08:25PM (#44547881)

        You basically just admitted that Linux boxes are harder to administer than Windows servers. This makes Linux servers much less appealing for companies when you can find Windows server admins for a dime a dozen, but Linux admins are harder to find and generally cost a lot more.

        • by Molochi (555357)

          "Not having the skills" just means they lack a breadth of training.

        • Re:Hmm (Score:5, Interesting)

          by DuckDodgers (541817) <keeper_of_the_wolf AT yahoo DOT com> on Monday August 12, 2013 @08:57PM (#44548125)
          Linux isn't harder to administer because of any inherent problems, it's harder for the average person to administer because we probably had Windows in the home computer and at the office, and at the school. Making the jump from Windows 95 to Windows NT or from Windows Vista to Server 2008 is a lot easier than jumping from Windows to Linux.

          If you're a serious power-user administrator, Linux and Unixes in general has been easier to administer than Windows Server for a very long time. You have more interoperable shell tools at your disposal. The Server GUI is better for an admin novice, but terminal tools are quicker for a power user than toggling through programs and hunting through menus. Microsoft is catching up with PowerShell, but even if the technology is extremely flexible and mature (and it may well be), they took the odd step of inventing a new syntax different enough to be confusing to people comfortable with bash or cmd.exe - me among them. Now I'm asking myself whether making the investment in Powershell is worthwhile. It probably is, but I don't look forward to it.
          • by jader3rd (2222716)

            Now I'm asking myself whether making the investment in Powershell is worthwhile.

            It's worthwhile.

            • Re:Hmm (Score:4, Interesting)

              by smash (1351) on Monday August 12, 2013 @10:00PM (#44548549) Homepage Journal
              +1. Powershell is quirky. It is prettty excruciatingly slow. There are bugs. But it really is pretty neat, and nothing similar exists in the Unix world as yet. If you need to admin Windows boxes, you'd definitely be well advised to learn powershell.
              • Re:Hmm (Score:4, Interesting)

                by MightyMartian (840721) on Monday August 12, 2013 @10:28PM (#44548709) Journal

                My experience with Powershell is sufficient to state that Windows users can keep it. Bash is a far far more mature shell with a helluva more lineage and experience behind it.

                • by siride (974284)

                  Yep. And if you want OO or real programming, just use Perl or Python.

                  And for God's sake, the whole signing scripts business with Powershell is a tragedy. I can understand the value of being a little bit more tight with scripts that can do harmful things, but it should only matter for scripts that need to run as admin or do system management tasks. I shouldn't need to cryptographically sign a script to extract tags from music files, for example. The process to do the signing is itself unnecessarily complex.

                  • And for God's sake, the whole signing scripts business with Powershell is a tragedy. I can understand the value of being a little bit more tight with scripts that can do harmful things, but it should only matter for scripts that need to run as admin or do system management tasks. I shouldn't need to cryptographically sign a script to extract tags from music files, for example. The process to do the signing is itself unnecessarily complex.

                    Just set the execution policy for the scope that you want. Type man set-executionpolicy -para scope. You will notice that scope can be set for the process, the current user account or for the local machine. So if you want to then simple set a less restrictive execution policy (like RemoteSigned) for your current user. That will still prevent scripts downloaded through a browser or received through a mail to be executed.

                    There are a lot of legitimate uses for script signing. For instance, for a tightly manage

                • by smash (1351)

                  I'll grant you bash is more mature and intuitive, sure - but you can do things in powershell that just either aren't possible with bash without writing helper applications in a non-scripting language or are exceedingly convoluted.

                  The big difference is the object pipeline which takes a little to get your head around, but enables you to do far more processing on data than text manipulation with sed, grep, awk and friends.

                  I'd suggest opening your mind a little and giving it a shot. If you don't administe

                  • " but you can do things in powershell that just either aren't possible with bash without writing helper applications in a non-scripting language or are exceedingly convoluted"

                    I'll take you mean in Windows. No doubt doing things on windows is exceedingly convoluted. Now, there's a ton of things you can do with Bash if you take the time to learn it -and it surely pays out: unix-like environments have a tradition of not mangling too much with things that work, so what you learn now will be of value ten or ev

                    • Re:Hmm (Score:5, Informative)

                      by benjymouse (756774) on Tuesday August 13, 2013 @01:39AM (#44549593)

                      There are *a lot* of little things in PowerShell that makes you go "aw, that's a good idea". Things you will not find in other shells and neither in Pytho, Ruby or Perl.

                      Off the top of my head:

                      * Consistent common parameters for "impact management": You can pass a parameter called -WhatIf to every built-in command that may change persistent state. The -WhatIf parameter runs the command in simulated mode, only echoing on the console what it *would have* done. Similarly a common -Confirm parameter which asks *before* changing persistent state. It even works for scripts and functions: If you declare that your script (in a .ps1 file) "supports shouldprocess" you can pass the -WhatIf parameter to your script and PowerShell will set the whatif preference for the duration of the entire script - as if each command of the script had been passed a -whatif parameter as well.

                      * Commands, functions, script blocks and script files declare parameters with (optional) static types. This information is used by PowerShell to coerce values to the correct types before invocation. But the declarations can also contain declarative validation attributes, allowing the *shell* to validate parameters before invocation. Declarative validation can validate required parameters, string lengths, number/date ranges, regular expressions, value sets. The kicker here is that the script author does not need to *implement* validations, merely declare them, the information is available to the shell which can use it to both validate parameters before invocation, but *also* to report the validations through the help system. That's right, when you set up validation, help text that describes the acceptable values is automatically generated from this meta information.

                      And yes, even the tab completion (or intellisense in the integrated scripting environment) will pick up on the parameter type and validation. If you restrict a parameter to a certain value set, tab completion will cycle through those values when the shell determines that you request tab completion for the parameter.

                      * The PowerShell help system allow for in-script help text through special code comments. No need to author external help files. You can write the documentation right there in the script (using special "dot" comments), and when you do man myscript.ps1, the help system will report the documentation.

                      * PowerShell workflows allow scripts to suspend and resume at a later time. No, this is not the process suspend of sh shells. PowerShell actually saves the state of script execution to persistent storage and you can resume execution later, even after system restart - or on another computer. This is incredibly useful for the type of scripts that manages farms of servers and that may be running for a long time. If the script is somehow interrupted (power failure, hardware failure) it can later automatically pick up its execution from the latest savepoint. I.e. you can restart it and have it run to completion.

                      PowerShell is not simply a programming language. It has many features which are directly aimed at being used in a scripting setting and which are not found in general purpose language like Python or Ruby.

                    • by smash (1351)

                      Dude... Powershell is already coming up 7 years old, and the core concepts are still the same, there are just more cmdlets available. If you're even comparing to Ruby, Bash or Python you clearly have no idea how powershell operates or what it can do and have not spent any real time playing with it.

                      And as you have not spent any time playing with it, your opinion is entirely uninformed, and you're just shitting on it because it is written by Microsoft.

                      Maintaining the status quo because this is how we've

                    • Thanks for filling in some details. I've heard people rave about PowerShell before. I've also read that Microsoft planned adding an optional view pane to every control panel and administrator tool in Server 2012 that would output the PowerShell equivalent command to anything you did in the GUI. That strikes me as a brilliant way to turn your slow click-monkeys into fast shell admins. I'd like to see Red Hat or Canonical (Ubuntu) do something similar for Unix, but I don't think even Red Hat has the engin
                  • I'm going to be blunt. I have yet to meet a text replacement/massaging problem that couldn't be solved with ask. Years ago I wrote an ask script to translate a gawdawful mainframe export of a stationary supplier's catalog. W're talking tens of thousands of records, all space delimited with variable field sizes for different kinds of inventory records and some records that were even multi line.

                    I wrote the script on my Linux machine at home, grabbed the script and a compile of gawk for DOS and took it to the

              • by ArsonSmith (13997)

                I do kind of like the object oriented nature and not needing to use sed and awk to get useful info out of structured command output. Otherwise it seems like so much of it is different for the sake of being different and I can't stand to use it. When I need to I find it easier to figure out the commands I need to run, then use a Unix shell to generate them.

        • Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)

          by evilviper (135110) on Monday August 12, 2013 @09:56PM (#44548537) Journal

          Windows servers undoubtedly have the advantage of being able to turn up a service almost on accident, and have it minimally work. Actual administration and maintenance of them, though, is a Kafka-esque nightmare. I feel bad for Exhange admins. I've heard many horror stories of Windows support telling Admins there's no fix, no fallback, and they'll have to reinstall the entire server recreate datastores, and then they take a few months manually importing All user emails.

          Linux/Unix servers take more knowledge and effort to get up and running in the first place, but then are much more stable and deterministic, handle higher load, need less babysitting, and are easier and more consistent to keep updated and make changes to, knowing you're never going to have unrelated services break, or mysterious slowdowns and service unavailability.

          There's no doubt what comes out ahead in the end... Linux adminsa can mantain many times more servers than Windows admins. Consider that those Windows admins won't be free, and you'll be cash positive by hiring Linux admins in a very short time. I've worked for some of the most penny-pinching tight-wad companies around, and they emphasize Linux heavily (including on the desktops) paying their Linux admins more than even most management, and yet they heavily prefer Linuxx, and wouldn't dream ofusing Windows for anything important.

        • by smash (1351)
          I'd say its a bit misleading. Sure, Windows is easier to make work, but to actually secure and keep maintained is a pain in the arse.
        • No, he "admitted" than any 3rd grader can reboot Windows. $4 hosting companies don't get server admins, the get phone monkeys. I used to get frustrated with their "admins" being clueless, but then it happened. I was working with HostGator, a top hosts who has the same business model as GoDaddy hosting, and I found out their "admins" don't have access to the datacenter. They are literally just a phone bank and marketing company, with The Planet running the servers. So yeah, it's easier to hire Windows ph
        • Re:Hmm (Score:5, Interesting)

          by DaveAtFraud (460127) on Monday August 12, 2013 @10:26PM (#44548695) Homepage Journal

          You basically just admitted that Linux boxes are harder to administer than Windows servers. This makes Linux servers much less appealing for companies when you can find Windows server admins for a dime a dozen, but Linux admins are harder to find and generally cost a lot more.

          Er, no. Windows makes the easy things easy (pick what you want from the list rather than, horror of horrors, type something) but still hasn't succeeded in making the difficult easy. This lulls people who think they know what they're doing into jumping into the deep end and finding out they can't swim. Lots of things when setting up a server (web or otherwise) that require an understanding of the underlying networking. The Windows admins who don't know this are the ones who are "a dime a dozen." The ones that do can create a secure, functional site with Windows but wish they had Linux since it's easier and more secure and faster and more flexible and....

          Cheers,
          Dave

          • but still hasn't succeeded in making the difficult easy

            I'll meet you half-way and suggest that in Windows, it's easier to get something going initially, but in Linux it's easier to make detailed and significant changes later on.

            As for Windows admins wishing they had Linux, I've met a few Win admins and they generally consider interest in Linux to be something of a "phase", one which you grow out once you gain enough experience at what actually happens in corporate setup and why Exchange is so widely used (h

            • but still hasn't succeeded in making the difficult easy

              I'll meet you half-way and suggest that in Windows, it's easier to get something going initially, but in Linux it's easier to make detailed and significant changes later on.

              As for Windows admins wishing they had Linux, I've met a few Win admins and they generally consider interest in Linux to be something of a "phase", one which you grow out once you gain enough experience at what actually happens in corporate setup and why Exchange is so widely used (hint: it's fucking awesome how much capability it provides compared to a scattering of similar tools and services in Linux).

              My experience is that it seems like Windows admins who worked with Linux (or proprietary Unix) still prefer it but "put up with" IIS when they have to use it due to corporate policy. The admins who grew up on Windows and dabbled with Linux end up back on Windows. The main thing for me is that Linux is easier to troubleshoot since I don't have to go digging for some obscure registry entry that some program messed with and ended up breaking something else. Whoever came up with the registry should be taken

          • by siride (974284)

            You hit the nail on the head with many (but not all) MS products. I've had the (dis)pleasure of working with SSIS, SSAS and SSRS. SQL Server itself is a pretty decent DB, certainly better than MySQL, but the tools for extending it are just awful. Sure, SSIS is graphical and you can throw together a pretty flowchart that will make managers and bean counters happy at the demo. Then you actually have to do something real with it and find that you can't, for example, deploy a complex package hierarchy to the SQ

            • by Shados (741919)

              The SQL BI stack is in line with others in term of "usuability". Its not as powerful as, let say, Informatica, but the deployment of packages and all that fun stuff is in line. There's reasons for these woes, but overall it works fine once you understand the best practices. The excel issue is because of how the excel drivers work. Not so much an issue with SSIS as it is with the drivers (you'll have that issue with virtually anything that interface with excel unless it isn't using the default driver). So th

        • Other way around: you get what you pay for.

          I know of Windows admins who were perplexed by filenames with mixed upper and lower case characters when they had to briefly deal with a Linux system.

    • by gman003 (1693318)

      I was forced to use it during school. I can't say much for the fragility or insecurity (I only had to run some rudimentary static websites on it to pass the class), but the administration was much easier for the learn-by-rote students (which my school seemed to love the most).

      From the perspective of a guy who often doesn't even start X on his *nix boxes, it seemed a bit inflexible. But perhaps they have some weird .NET crap that works better for what they need.

    • Technology changes a lot in 9 years. 9 years ago I honestly though Linux was superior to Windows on a technical level, at least for desktop purposes. Now, I'm quite convinced of the opposite.

      • Perceptions change a lot in 9 years. 9 years ago I honestly thought Windows was superior to Linux on a technical level, at least for desktop purposes. Now, I'm quite convinced of the opposite.

      • Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)

        by turbidostato (878842) on Tuesday August 13, 2013 @12:46AM (#44549409)

        "Technology changes a lot in 9 years"

        Not 9 but 20 years ago I run NFS and CIFS, LDAP, Bind, Postfix... now I run NFS and CIFS, LDAP, Bind, Postfix...

        No, technology doesn't change a lot, marketroid guys make it look like so to stay in the business of selling new licenses.

    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by Tough Love (215404)

      what benefit does GoDaddy hope to realize with IIS?

      It's a lot cheaper for Micro$oft to pump up IIS by paying off godaddy than spending tons of money on devs, and you know, testing.

    • It's improved significantly. There is no "metabase" anymore. Everything is stored in .config files that you can edit with a text editor if you want. It has some really nice features, and is really easy to manage via GUI if you prefer too. Or powershell if that's your thing.

    • by asmkm22 (1902712)

      MS has done a pretty good job of keeping up on stability and security for all of their products since about 2006. I personally still host with nginx, due to the cost of MS products, but I administer enough to say that they are pretty straight forward and secure. It's easy for people to assume that Apache = secure or whatever, but the truth is, there are a shit ton of Apache deployments that are broken and exposed, usually as a result of people blindly apt-get installing whatever random package some outdat

  • by Todd Knarr (15451) on Monday August 12, 2013 @08:08PM (#44547733) Homepage

    In my book, the stats ought to be excluding "parked" sites, ones which don't have any content beyond a parking page. I'd also exclude sites whose only content is boilerplate advertising (eg. the one you get if you're on Cox Cable's internet service and type a nonexistent domain into your browser). I'm more interested in what servers are being used for productive work without the numbers being skewed by the guy who registered 10,000 domains related to the latest fad and is waiting to see which ones he can sell at a profit.

  • And hands down I prefer Apache. IIS is still closed and tries to be cute but fails miserably both for configuration and security.
  • Greg Stein - I'd like to here what he has to say?
  • In many respects, it is the most successful and widely deployed open-source technology today.

    Not even close. OpenSSH owns Apache here and that's not even considering things like BSD sockets.

  • by MrNemesis (587188) on Monday August 12, 2013 @08:40PM (#44547995) Homepage Journal

    Dupe! [slashdot.org] ...and the knock-on. [slashdot.org]

    I'm beginning to wonder if GoDaddy's web server policy follows the solar cycle... :)

    From the look of Netcraft's graph, prior to the GoDaddy move it looked like most of the marketshare lost from apache went straight into nginx (itself also frequently used as a caching proxy/frontend to another web server on the backend) so I'm not quite sure what the summary/TFA are trying to imply.

    http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2013/04/02/april-2013-web-server-survey.html [netcraft.com]

  • by synapse7 (1075571)
    Godaddy must have been running apache on Windows server, otherwise the licensing costs would have been a fortune.
  • Rubbish (Score:5, Informative)

    by Tough Love (215404) on Monday August 12, 2013 @09:26PM (#44548353)

    it's Microsoft IIS that has picked up share.

    No. Microsoft picked up a bunch of parked domains and its long term trend is still down, even for parked domains. In terms of active sites, Microsoft's trend is steadily down, now around 12% and sinking. And it is indeed nginx that is mainly picking up share from Apache, though Google is hanging in there pretty well too. This puff piece glosses over the one fact that can't be denied: Linux servers rule the web by a large and increasing margin.

    http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2013/08/09/august-2013-web-server-survey.html#more-12060 [netcraft.com]

  • by the_B0fh (208483) on Monday August 12, 2013 @09:46PM (#44548471) Homepage

    why is it that everytime I read about a dip in apache stats, it's because of godaddy switching over? Bloody hell, they've been switching over for years, just how many effing sites do they have?

  • fork() vs epoll() (Score:5, Informative)

    by NynexNinja (379583) on Monday August 12, 2013 @10:30PM (#44548721)
    I think when Nginx first came on the scene (a little bit after libevent was released), Apache had known about the scalability problems associated with using fork() versus epoll(). This was almost a decade ago. Apache has yet to provide a scalable implementation using epoll similar to what Nginx provides. Its at least a 10x speed improvement on the same hardware.

    All that I can say is that all new installations over the past I'd say about 5 years, I've been doing using Nginx only because Apache just can't scale well with their fork() implementation compared to Nginx. I'd say this has something to do with people leaving Apache, at least all the people I know.
    • by codealot (140672)

      Why are you still using prefork? You have at least two good alternative MPMs, one of which can use epoll().

Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.

The only difference between a car salesman and a computer salesman is that the car salesman knows he's lying.

Working...