[mapserver-users] MapServer and 2000

[Ed McNierney]

Puneet -

Thanks; yes, if you're running IIS in a production environment, the machine you're running on needs to be a Windows 2000 Server system.

I do not agree with your description of a machine "Windows would choke on".  Did you actually see Windows "choke" on that machine?  I get very frustrated by folklore without basis.  I run Windows and Linux here, and I'm running Windows on a machine that sounds a lot like the one you're describing except it has a slower processor <g>.  No choking observed.

I also do not agree with your "stability" assessment, including the "enough tweaks" comment.  This also sounds a lot like hand-me-down folklore.  Just the other day I posted a comment about my production Windows 2000 server running the MapCard site (and several others).  I don't think I "tweaked" anything, and that system went into production on December 12 and the MapCard site went into full production on January 1.  It has never crashed, hung, or needed to be rebooted in the last five months.  What's so unstable about that?  My TopoZone topographic map server (not a MapServer application) has been running since November 30, 1999 without crashing or hanging.  It first ran Windows NT and has since been upgraded to Windows 2000.  It has been powered down or rebooted several times because it's been moved or upgraded.  It has served over one billion topographic map images in nearly 2.5 years.  Unstable?

Grep?  Gee, that's free software you can just download for Windows from http://www.interlog.com/~tcharron/grep.html and other places - don't you have free downloadable software in the *nix world <g>?

Your comment about viruses is absolutely correct, and something anyone should consider in choosing a production environment.

I have one system I originally installed Windows 2000 on and then migrated to Red Hat Linux.  The chief difference was that my gigabit Ethernet card worked right out of the box on Windows 2000.  On Linux I had to download the driver SOURCE CODE from the vendor and then install my kernel sources so I could compile and build the driver and then edit my network scripts to load it at boot time.  I suppose you could call that "infinitely more interesting", but some users would call it something else.

I have developed a LOT of software for Windows, DOS, UNIX, Macintosh, a few failed home computer OSes, and mini and mainframe OSes I'd be embarassed to admit.  I guess I'm just not an OS bigot of ANY sort; in the vast majority of cases, the total cost of ownership has very little to do with the OS and a lot more to do with the skills and capabilities of the team doing the work.  But PLEASE base your decisions on real data that's relevant to your environment and to your application, not "conventional wisdom".

	- Ed

Ed McNierney
Chief Mapmaker
TopoZone.com
ed at topozone.com
(978) 251-4242



-----Original Message-----
From: Puneet Kishor [mailto:pkishor at GeoAnalytics.com]
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 12:23 PM
To: EDWARD G QUINBY
Cc: mapserver-users at lists.gis.umn.edu
Subject: Re: [mapserver-users] MapServer and 2000



On Friday, May 10, 2002, at 10:03  AM, EDWARD G QUINBY wrote:

> Could someone expound upon Puneet's comment "Every IIS instance
> requires a Win server (well, not truly true but mostly true)."

well, who better than Puneet to clarify what I meant... :-). Btw, none 
of my claims to follow are scientific. They are purely my opinion 
supported by my experience. As usaul, I cud be wrong.

As of pre-win2k/IIS5, IIS could run only on a server. M$ also started to 
make it more and more difficult to even download IIS separately... it 
started with getting this options kit for a bazillion mb download or a 
cd, and then it disappeared... logic... they started building IIS 
capabilities in the os, welding it all together. If you wanted to run a 
standalone web server on your workstation, you could mess around with 
pws, but that was it.

Starting Win2k/IIS, you can now finally actually run IIS on a Win2k 
workstation, but you are limited to 5 connections. If you want to run a 
full-scale IIS, you need a Win2k server... essentially, each IIS 
connection is treated as a user, and you need to have enough licenses. 
Usually, for a full-scale website you would need to get an unlimited 
license. If you run Win2k workstation, then you essentially get 5 
licenses free... more than that and you are unable to connect, or you 
wait till a license becomes available.

Now, I am not a Win guru... Ed McN's the guy for that because he uses 
Win2k/IIS combo for his daily work. I only use Win2k workstation at 
work, but I have installed Apache on it. Apache works like a star on 
Win2k. However, I use my Win2k/Apache machine primarily for Cold Fusion 
work and some Perl/PHP (non-mapserver) work.

My mapserver is running on a RH Linux with Apache. I am not a *nix guru 
either (there is a pattern here), but I have found *nix to be not only 
infinitely more interesting than Win, it is also nowhere as difficult as 
folks make it out to be. The *nix machine is connected to our primarily 
Win network using Samba... the drive appears on my Win box like any 
other drive, and I use jEdit on my Win box to work directly on the PHP 
files sitting on the *nix box.

In my view there are several advantages to *nix (doesn't have to be 
Linux... personally, I prefer FreeBSD, but that is only because I am a 
MacOS X/Darwin bigot).

One. Licensing cost. Everything from the OS, scripting language, 
databases, compilers, development tools, web server, everything... is 
free. Install it once, or install it on a thousand cheap Celeron/Duron 
machines costing $300 each... you pay zip for the software. Make a 
beowolf cluster for all you care... buy a RISC-based yellowdog briq 
array, or server your data on an NAS raid.

Two. Runs on machines Windows would choke on. My friend Greg took a 
really aging PC, bought a $200 mobo with a Duron 1.2 Ghz chip on it 
(kinda like Celeron) and 128 Mb ram. The PC has 3 Gb hd (I am not 
kidding). It runs like a champ. A little crontab entry cleans up the tmp 
files every so, and nada a problem.

Three. Stable. although, given enough tweaks even a Win2k/IIS machine 
would be so (or Win2k/Apache).

Four. No viruses... all the kiddies are spending their energies trying 
to bring the evil empire down so they leave Apache well alone for most 
of the time.

Five. Grep. What can I say...

pk/

ps. I notice you are facstaff.wisc. send me an email and we can meet at 
Milan's to go over the merits/demerits... I am in Madison.

>
> We're in the preliminary stages of planning a Mapserver site and are
> debating the relative merits of Win/Linux/IIS/Apache.
>
> I have previous experience working with Mapserver on a Win 2000/Apache
> configuration but am considering using a Win 2000/IIS configuration for
> this new project.  Just want to make sure we've got all the bases
> covered before making a decision.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ted