Apache >> IIS

June 9, 2004 12:00 PM

The Apache server has been really fast for me, with better uptime than the IIS one. I'm even posting comments on it successfully, though other things like the user page don't work yet. What's the dev update on its deployment? I don't meant to be impatient, just curious.
posted by scarabic to Bugs at 12:00 PM (16 comments total)

That's "mean" - and I'm sorry if I'm missing a posted update somewhere. I haven't exactly combed the Wiki for info.
posted by scarabic at 12:01 PM on June 9, 2004

I'm going to move to the new server this weekend at the latest. It'll take about 4-6 hours of tinkering I'm guessing, and I've put it off for the past couple weeks as work as continued to pop up.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:17 PM on June 9, 2004

Just for the record, I'm both curious and impatient (and for a small fee I can be sneezy, dopey and bashful too).

Good luck on the switchover Matt!
posted by fvw at 12:26 PM on June 9, 2004

I'm going to move to the new server this weekend at the latest.

Yay! Thanks, Matt!
posted by me3dia at 12:39 PM on June 9, 2004

Sweet. Good luck, Matt!

I have to confess, though, that it's been pretty cool to post comments via the Apache server while the IIS one is down. I get the impression that most folk are stuck looking at a 404 screen while I get to babble away.

Yay babbling! Yay Apache!

tagline?
posted by scarabic at 12:43 PM on June 9, 2004

I have to admit, I've been experiencing a very evil pleasure by posting comments through the Apache server when practically nobody else could comment because IIS was down. Mmm.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 12:47 PM on June 9, 2004

Argh. No more multitasking and leaving the comment preview open for four minutes. No more.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 12:48 PM on June 9, 2004

This is awesome. Thanks, Matt.
posted by majcher at 1:06 PM on June 9, 2004

Was that mirror or parody, Doc?
posted by scarabic at 2:35 PM on June 9, 2004

Well, now everyone knows about it!
posted by smackfu at 3:42 PM on June 9, 2004

True, I'm curious to see if it's as reliable once it's carrying the full load, including AskMe and MeTa. Are you thinking of converting those sites, also, Matt? Or can the IIS box handle them well enough?
posted by scarabic at 3:59 PM on June 9, 2004

can the IIS box handle them well enough?

are we actually changing boxes, or just httpd software?
posted by quonsar at 7:12 PM on June 9, 2004

Is that why there are so many new comments listed after the site comes back up? It seemed weird.
posted by amberglow at 7:44 PM on June 9, 2004

Just a new http server, on the same box. If the site's reliability and speed doesn't improve, I'll start looking into other solutions.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:02 PM on June 9, 2004

Yeah, amberglow, for a time, reading the homepage was about all that worked for me on :8080, but then I found I was able to click through to comments, and during a lively chit chat the other day, which was interrupted by an outage, I found I could even post comments there. Click around it now and you'll get some Cold Fusion barf here and there. You don't even realize how complex this rig is until you see it turned on one feature at a time.
posted by scarabic at 10:26 PM on June 9, 2004

Thanks Matt! Definitely feels faster to me, especially loading big pages. If it stays up during the morning in Europe, then I'll be even happier.

I may have missed it, but is there an explanation for why IIS was behaving so badly? Does Microsoft suck, or is there another reason?
posted by fuzz at 8:20 AM on June 10, 2004