Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Stats Microsoft The Internet Apache IT

Will Microsoft IIS Overtake Apache? 303

Posted by timothy
from the netcraft-hints-at-it dept.
First time accepted submitter jcdr writes "February's 2014 Web Server Survey by Netcraft shows a massive increase [in the share of] Microsoft's web server since 2013. Microsoft's market share is now only 5.4 percentage points lower than Apache's, which is the closest it has ever been. If recent trends continue, Microsoft could overtake Apache within the next few months, ending Apache's 17+ year reign as the most common web server."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Will Microsoft IIS Overtake Apache?

Comments Filter:
  • by Martin S. (98249) <Martin.Spamer@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @02:15PM (#46152001) Homepage Journal
    The results look very different when you look where the traffic is going:

    Developer January 2014 Percent February 2014 Percent Change

    Apache 98,129,017 54.50% 94,741,928 52.68% -1.81

    nginx 21,548,550 11.97% 24,206,737 13.46% 1.49

    Microsoft 20,901,626 11.61% 21,196,966 11.79% 0.18

    Google 15,386,518 8.54% 15,245,912 8.48% -0.07

  • Re:why not? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Danzigism (881294) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @02:22PM (#46152143)
    I seem to remember a substantial amount of botnets running on Linux servers that have Apache on them. Also thanks to poor coders with bad PHP, SQL injections are quite common as well. But this article is bound to spark knee-jerk reactions to OSS software fanatics. Just don't forget that tons of people are switching to nginx and lighttpd on a daily basis which also decreases Apache's use as well.
  • Statistics? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by PPH (736903) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @02:25PM (#46152185)

    This is a count of sites running web services, right? Not volume served out by each brand of server.

    Microsoft has had the practice of starting IIS on practically every server for the purpose of providing a web management interface. In some cases, without informing the system admin.

    Anecdote:

    Many years ago, when I managed a few Intranet sites at Boeing (SunOS, HP-UX, AIX, Linux), we had a variant of the Code Red [wikipedia.org] worm infecting IIS systems. Admins of *NIX systems could see the propagation of the worm payload in our web logs, even though our systems were immune*. We collected the source IPs of infected systems and turned them over to computing security. The next thing we knew, we'd get calls from Windows server admins, claiming that their systems could not be infected, as they were not running IIS. "Look again." Configuring many services automatically triggers a start of IIS. And now you've got a service running that the admins don't know that they have to keep patched. So even when Microsoft released a fix, it never got applied since many admins figured it wasn't applicable to them. I would venture a guess that most Windows Server (and many client) systems are running IIS, even if it only displays the default installation page.

    *Typical Apache/*NIX systems just replied with a 404 since the target DLL didn't exist. But I wrote a Perl CGI that would capture the query source and fire back a Windows popup message to the effect that their machine was broadcasting an infection. I was surprised to see how many people with client (desktop) systems called me to ask when was going on.

  • Re: why not? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by QuietLagoon (813062) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @02:28PM (#46152267)

    If I remember correctly, Microsoft was paying large hosting providers like GoDaddy to use IIS over apache

    The evidence of that is the "all sites" graph which shows IIS's share increasing vs. the "active sites" graph which shows IIS's share plummeting. IIS appears to be hosting a lot of dead sites, ironically.

  • by neoform (551705) <djneoform@gmail.com> on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @02:36PM (#46152427) Homepage

    I for one switched all my web servers from apache to nginx. It simply performs better.

  • Re:From TFA (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jcdr (178250) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @03:09PM (#46152937)

    Hi, I am the submitter of this story. Believe or not, I am really not connected to Microsoft, directly or indirectly. I am the co-founder of a very small company that provides services for embedded electronics and almost exclusively use Linux. I submitted this story after reading the monthly Netcraft email news. I wondering how Microsoft marketing team could possibly use the potential news "ISS > Apache" and how the OSS community will react to that news.

    Reading many comments, It look like the "ISS > Apache" event is probably unavoidable because of the rise of Nginx that eat Apache share and the fact that Nginx is still less used that ISS in the first graph. Still the ISS fast increase is hard to explain by reading the comments. Is that only smoke that affect only the first graph, or an other trend that will drive the others graphs ?

  • by wagnerrp (1305589) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @03:18PM (#46153061)
    IIS has been on a fairly steady decline since 2000. There was a spike beginning in 2006 that rapidly died off in 2009, following which IIS continued its slow downward decline. Nginx actually has a higher usage than IIS, and Apache is still around 50%. IIS is only the server of choice among inactive placeholder pages on disused hostnames.
  • Re: why not? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by petermgreen (876956) <plugwashNO@SPAMp10link.net> on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @03:53PM (#46153559) Homepage

    At this point, I'm not 100% sure what in any reasonable configuration Apache would offer over nginx.

    A couple of things i've noticed

    1: The combination of nginx and php can be a pain. It's easy enough to make it work for the root of a hostname but if you then add a subdirectory of the domain that is mapped to a different local directory it breaks because nginx passes the wrong path to php. I belive it's possible to make things work again with a sufficiantly complex configuration but I haven't figured out how yet. In my case I just worked arround it by using subdomains.
    2: Some more specialist stuff may rely on specific apache modules that afaict don't have an nginx equivilent. For example mod_dav_svn or mod_mirrorbrain.

  • by goruka (1721094) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @04:04PM (#46153695)
    Someone I know runs a hosting provider in Latin America, they sell virtualization, dedicated servers and housing. I don't remember exactly how the deal was (this was about 2 years ago). Microsoft talks to everyone here to route their traffic through Window Server devices and IIS or fake server agents in exchange of money, hardware and licenses. I don't have proof and can't obviously point to specific providers, but i've seen the devices myself.
  • Re: why not? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by burne (686114) on Tuesday February 04, 2014 @09:25PM (#46157695)

    > Windows can't run a month w/o needing a reboot

    Regardless, I reboot all my linux, unix and bsd boxes once a month too. Just to be sure anything can rebooted by a noc monkey without disturbing my sleep.

    During daytime, yes. Redundancy is a lie unless you test it periodically.

FORTH IF HONK THEN

Working...