Why doesn't Linux have an alternative that even comes close

>>58528307
>1 cpu core

>>58528307
now show the multicore test

File: iis-linux-webservers-8-cpu-cores.png (98KB, 1134x680px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1134x680px

>>58530429
>>58531347
https://www.rootusers.com/linux-vs-windows-web-server-benchmarks/

>>58531432
impressive, IIS handled it better than i was expecting

>>58528307
Because Unix developers aren't crazy enough to put internet-facing services into kernel.

>>58531475
GNU's not Unix, retard.

>>58531498
Unix is not the same as UNIX, retard.

>C++
Dem security holes

>>58528307
>Lincucks extermely BTFO

Iis is insanely insecure and it's in the Windows kernel... so it should be much faster.

>>58528307
> One microbenchmark says my thing is the fastest, let's ignore contradicting other tests!

> One single request of loan(100) takes:
> G-WAN + C script ............... 0.4 ms
> Apache + PHP .................. 12.6 ms
> GlassFish + Java ...............42.3 ms
> IIS + ASP.Net C# ............ 171.8 ms
http://gwan.com/benchmark

IIS completely BTFO.

>>58531573
>C
Dem security holes

The fastest way of using an IIS stack in this test (they tried other combinations) makes it the *20th* fastest option.

Fucking amazing!

https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r8&hw=i7&test=query

File: not_bad_bwaah.png (851KB, 559x799px) Image search: [Google]

851KB, 559x799px

>>58528307
>>58531432
>mfw our in house made webserver is faster than those in single and multi core

>>58531817
>>58531960
>cherrypicking niche benchmarks

>>58531817
>benchmark article opens with a (((soros))) quote
kys kike

>>58534475
Kikes consistently advocate open source. I wonder why...

>>58534425
One is even using the same "niche benchmark" tooling as the OP.

And two cherry-picked tests by two completely different organizations are more than one, anyhow.


More importantly, just about fucking nobody with an actually big deployment is using IIS - that should be your real clue.

Not even those that put a lot of effort into writing much of their own web stacks and obviously want it all have run well.

>>58528307
Where's node.js?

>>58534475
> Quick, distract from IIS being complete fail by talking about a quote on a web page!

>>58534500
Even in open source, richfags decide most work that gets done by, you know, hiring people to do it and deciding what companies use - as such, they also decide what becomes "the industry standard".

But it's still a vast difference from the decision being up to just the one man in the walled castle surrounded by the walled property.

At least we're actually in ~ the same place rather than having to thank the man for even just being able to sleep in a stable full of horse dung (which we damn well better don't fling out on his property!).

File: giphy.gif (2MB, 260x195px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 260x195px

>>58528307
>apache

>>58534778
Where's your brain?

File: 1475774072977.png (41KB, 871x693px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 871x693px

>>58534666
>nobody with an actually big deployment is using IIS
Except you're wrong, you fucking retard. At least 29% of deployments are running Microsoft technology. Pic related. Stay buttmad.

>>58534778
Nobody uses that. Pic related.

>>58531432
>IIS10 performs worse on average than 8.5
top kek

>>58534996
Those same 29% are the ones you hear about every week or 2 getting hacked.
Usually run in tandem with PHP as well, for some fucking retarded reason.

>>58535051
Of course hackers are gonna target more common systems and the ones most likely to hold more important info, you shithead.

>>58531498
Lmao thanks for the chuckle RMS

At my company we have to support a few off-site IIS Servers, and they're by far the slowest pieces of shit in our whole portfolio. Even with beefy hardware backing them up.

>>58534996
I said big deployments running on IIS virtually don't exist, you fucking retard.

Is Google/Youtube running IIS? Wikipedia? Facebook? LinkedIn? Twitter? Instagram? Amazon? eBay? Netflix? Even Baidu or Taobao?

Just about nobody big on the web uses IIS. What you have in your picture is the sad state of affairs in (also strongly US - they probably didn't crawl the web in general) companies where Joe the Windows GUI muh group policy editor guy also is responsible for their web servers, which then just are Windows IIS crap.

Good thing most of these sites also have few users or they'd explode.

>>58528307
Literally wtf is IIS?

Nginx is most used on top 1000 worldwide websites because its event driven and very scalable. Wincucks gonna hate

>>58535675
>what is Azure?

>>58535706
I kek'd

>>58535765
A botnet designed to help weebs launch Linux VMs in M$ datacenters.

>>58535706
Microsoft's web server thing. Supporting mostly Microsoft technology stacks and only used on Microsoft operating systems. Can gives Microsoft certified sysadmins another Microsoft certificate & GUI to do that web administration with.

Knee deep integration with Visual Studio & .NET, Office and so on so if your people are lazy you will end up producing for and relying on it and be stuck with it no matter what.

>>58535765
A shitty and desperate attempt of Microsoft to keep their enterprise customers and "the cloud" in their walled garden.

When it's mostly escaping to the far more interoperable, open ecosystem around interfaces like AWS, which are far easier to work with and do more. They're chasing after that, really, all while trying to keep it as annoyingly closed as possible.

I'm sure a few companies will see a way in Azure to drop some MS sysadmins while also getting better performance than with the shitty IIS they had before, but nobody will actually want to "design" a cloud stack on Azure.
It's SO ridiculously shit vs. the rest of the world's cloud stuff (which revolves around AWS *interfaces*, increasingly standardized virtual machines & object containers, and so on).

>>58528307

What is this benchmark even? What is the server actually serving?

I can definitely imagine IIS being faster than the alternatives, but the reason is because part of IIS lives in the kernel (http.sys), which is LOLSECURITY for a webserver.

>>58536064
You can imagine it being faster in a benchmark.

Can you imagine almost everyone in the top 100 most frequented (or whatever, pick any agency's ranking) websites picking a web server stack that would be as much slower as OP pretends it is?

They virtually all picked faster stacks, and -surprise!- it's not IIS based in almost all cases.