OT: Wanna run your own web server?

riredale wrote on 12/12/2007, 9:29 AM
Completely off-topic, but if you have a website and have either wondered how a server works or wanted to have total control of the site, reply here and I can give some feedback based on my own recent experience. For those already doing this sort of thing, I'll mention up-front that I'm using Abyss as the server, EveryDNS as the DNS, and DirectUpdate as the dynamic address monitor. They are all free.

Comments

rmack350 wrote on 12/12/2007, 10:50 AM
I hadn't heard of Abyss but I see that it supports ASP.NET and ASP. Apache, although a fine web server, doesn't do that. So if you have a need for those two microsoft technologies and also need multiple sites (because you develop for several clients, or have several in-office web applications that require their own servers) then this looks like a good deal.

XP Pro comes with an MS web server that can serve one site. To have virtual sites you need to pay for the server version of the OS. Paying 60 bucks for this is a damn sight cheaper.

Rob Mack
Coursedesign wrote on 12/12/2007, 11:48 AM
Please don't use ASP.

Why?

It becomes very easy to create non-standard sites that don't work with all web browsers.

Microsoft would love for you to create web sites that can only be viewed with the grossly non-standard IE browser. They even persuaded Federal government agencies to do this, and the result was that many people couldn't access them using emergency access computers set up by FEMA and volunteer agencies.

The agencies have relented, I hope you do the same.
Chienworks wrote on 12/12/2007, 12:03 PM
ASP also tends to produce highly bloated HTML code, sometimes orders of magnitude larger than what is necessary to get the job done. This makes page loads take longer, eats up more bandwidth, and generally lowers the experience for everyone.

Rob, i'm not sure if i followed you correctly, but you seem to indicate that if you want to host more than one site then Apache won't work. If that's what you mean, then it's not true. Apache has always allowed virtual hosts. I've got 60+ domains and 200+ subdomains resolved on my Apache box. Apache is also free, and it's the granddaddy of servers, based on the original NCSA server software, so it's basically what defined the standard for web servers.

Even the free, scummy, command-line driven Apache for Windows hosts multiple sites.

I've been pounding Apache for over a decade, both at home and professionally. There's nothing we've ever found it couldn't do. It can even run ASP if you install the right hacks. It would be a pretty senseless thing to do, but it can do it.
Coursedesign wrote on 12/12/2007, 12:58 PM
Half of the world's web servers run Apache.

Funny with the HTML bloat in ASP, must be same guys who did Frontpage and more recently Expression Web.

If you want a great, easy exercise to get sixpack abs in time for next summer on the beach, I highly recommend reading the HTML output from Microsoft Expression Web (or Frontpage) web page creation tools.

You'll be laughing so hard you'll get the desired abdominals very quickly.
jazzmaster wrote on 12/12/2007, 1:01 PM
if this will facilitate in running streaming media, I am interested in what you have.
Burt Wilson
TimTyler wrote on 12/12/2007, 3:14 PM
> It becomes very easy to create non-standard sites
> that don't work with all web browsers.

> ASP also tends to produce highly bloated HTML code

Sorry - But that's just not true. ASP is just a server side scripting language that works on Microsoft's server OS's. The HTML it outputs is no different than any other HTML.
DavidMcKnight wrote on 12/12/2007, 3:21 PM
Tim is correct on this point; I develop currently with C#; I'm not a Microsoft zealot by any means, but the culprit of bloated HTML is usually Frontpage, Dreamweaver, or some other attempted WYSIWYG development tool.
riredale wrote on 12/12/2007, 3:26 PM
Some of you guys are evidently way ahead of me with this server stuff--I was just glad to get a website up and running on my own PC box.

I was also pleased about putting the server on a dynamic IP address, with an automatic scheme that would update that address if and when my ISP decided to change it.
Coursedesign wrote on 12/12/2007, 4:39 PM
Just go with PHP.

Mature, improved, and better than ever.
rmack350 wrote on 12/12/2007, 10:53 PM
Too late.

You don't always have control of these decisions, and you don't just refuse to go to work because the client wants a certain technology you don't agree with. I'm just glad to see an alternative to IIS for ASP and ASP.net support.

Rob
rmack350 wrote on 12/12/2007, 11:00 PM
No, that's not what I said. I'm fully aware that Apache can run multiple virtual hosts. It's the version of IIS that comes with XP Pro that can only run one host, and that's not helpful if you need to maintain and test several IIS-based sites on your own testing server.

I'm also well aware that you can install ASP support in apache (all the ASP I use is identical to SSI, so I'm not experiencing any particular bloat there). What isn't available for Apache is support for ASP.net, which is very different from ASP.

When you work for others, sometimes you're stuck with the technology you have instead of the technology you want. Hmm. Sounds familiar.

Rob
rmack350 wrote on 12/12/2007, 11:13 PM
It's a good thing, and I wasn't aware of the web server you're using. Seems like having a server that can cover more bases for cheap is good.

There's obviously a little sensitivity to ASP.net but I'm not too proud to accept the paycheck for things a client wants to have.

The dynamic DNS is good for personal stuff-sending files home, getting things from home, personal websites, etc. I'm not sure how much traffic my ISP would tolerate, but since I'm on DSL, the uploads won't go too fast anyway.

Rob
rmack350 wrote on 12/12/2007, 11:17 PM
ASP mainly serves as SSI by another name. Many of the same directives, and equally bloated (as in, not at all).

ASP.net is another matter. All I have to do with that is post what the client's programmer provides, but I have to test it on a server that supports it (and matches the production server), and that's not Apache. Maybe things have changed, but a year ago there was no support for ASPX in apache.

Rob