Will Microsoft IIS Overtake Apache?

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."

Re: why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re: why not?

[dmiller1984]

I don't know if Microsoft paid them, but GoDaddy did move all of their parked sites to IIS by default instead of Apache, which caused a major percentage change for Microsoft.

Sensationalist summary :(

[janoc]

One needs to look beyond the first graph that shows all sites surveyed to look at the actually active sites - there Apache appears to have more *active* deployments than the rest combined. Counting inactive, parked domains is not really indicative of particular server popularity.

Re:large hosting company using IIS != IIS populari

[mtippett]

Exactly. A bit of sensationalism in the story.

All Sites (included millions of parked) are in 38%/%32 mix. Looking 600 pixels down and you see the active (non parked sites). The percentage is 52% vs 11%. The big drop in for MS in 2009 was probably a nail in the coffin...

Re:IIS better in almost every way.

[CastrTroy]

I wouldn't go quite that far. I would say the two tools aren't really comparable anyway. Which one you use really depends on what you're using for your backend development. If you want .Net, you (pretty much) have to use IIS. If you use PHP, Python, Ruby, or other langauges, you most likely are going to be using Apache/Nginx.

Re:IIS better in almost every way.

[TheRaven64]

The last part of your post is the important one:

you most likely are going to be using Apache/Nginx.

IIS market share dipped a bit after 2008 and is now back to about where it was. Apache jumped a lot since 2008 and is now back a bit below where it was. Nginx has gone from 1% to 14% in the same time. IIS has hovered between 20-30% for a while. It's now closer to 30%. Apache has been in the 50-70% range for a long time, but is now dipping a lot. The only reason we're using Apache is that Nginx doesn't work as a reverse SSL proxy in front of Jenkins (apparently it can, with some magic incantations, but they didn't work for us). For everything else, Nginx is an obvious choice. It's somewhat sad to see that Nginx has completely displaced Lighttpd, as it would have been nice to have some more active competition.

Re: why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

SQL-injections usually result in an output of data or a valid login session or destruction of data. Remote code execution would be a rare thing.
Bots usually prefer the taste of client computers. Massive botnets written in PHP inhabiting LINUX servers? Sure there are plenty of bugs in PHP, but that has nothing to do with either Apache or LINUX.

Your point is invalid, my hair is a bird!

Re:IIS better in almost every way.

[dkman]

I have used both, from working for a hosting provider as an administrator, to working for MS itself later, to my job now. Configuration of apache is only slightly more difficult in that you need to use a text editor instead of point and click hold handing, however IIS is no wear near as powerful in that you can do much more with apache because of the slightly more difficult configuration. In addition apache is more lightweight, and has better security.

It got a little confusing about which it you were referring, so I FTFY. Why is it that after I've written the comment I get options to Submit - Continue Editing - Preview - Cancel , but not Login?

Re:IIS better in almost every way.

[jaymz666]

I use both, EVERY SINGLE DAY

IIS changes how it's managed with every single point release, and nothing is obvious about it.

Just to use SSL you need to use multiple administration interfaces to import the cert and then assign that to a specific server

If you know what you are doing, and you should, you can much more easily navigate a text file with all the options than you can clicking around in a dozen places to work on IIS configs.
Then there's all the issues with file permissions

Re: why not?

[petermgreen]

mmm, the "active sites" graph looks far more stable, apache is showing a slight downward trend recently but the market share it's losing doesn't seem to be going to MS

Re:Probably

[operagost]

No, those concern serious problems with NTLM and LM. Both of those not only aren't part of AD, they predate it. That's also why security standards now require NTLMv2 be enabled and older authentication methods be refused.

Maybe for 1 server...

[Anonymous Coward]

IIS is great if you don't want to bother learning the ins and outs of your server software, and you don't have that many to deploy.

Go deploy 200+ IIS servers then tell me they are easier to manage than apache.

Then go install the URLRewrite module, and try getting support from Microsoft when it threadlocks on you.

And yes, I've used Apache, IIS and Nginx extensively in large scale production sites. IIS ranks 3rd in the bunch in my book for stability and easy of management. It does do fairly well in performance but only if your apps are .NET. Any other language and nginx/apache solidly smokes it.