Thread: Windows 2003 web server or 2008?

Windows 2003 Web doesnt support MSSQL, so decision made

2003 Std does.
2003 Web doesnt

Originally Posted by JamieBeeston

2003 Std does.
2003 Web doesnt

W2K3 Web Enhanced supports MSSQL STD as far as I'm aware but you are limited to 32bit and 4Gb mem so pointless.

I would go with W2K8 Web x64
- Max 32Gb Mem
- 4 Physical CPU's
- MSSQL Supported

IIS7's performance increases on .net and php applications make it worthwhile!

We don't put any new web servers into production using 32bit windows anymore.

I'd go with W2k8 Standard - forget the "cripled" web versions completely

Originally Posted by mindnet

I just caught onto the virtualisation ability of 2008 and realised that I could host BOTH linux and windows on the same server - WOW - this is tempting because I'd like a Linux box to run PHP sites rather than using it with IIS.

If you try IIS7 with FastCGI you will get the same performance as a LAMP based setup.

The only issue you can have is with older php sites coded to php4 or something stupid like that.

CentOS works well for servers. I've not used the Ubuntu server version recently, it was always OK but lacking a bit of polish IMHO.

Originally Posted by mindnet

Anybody got any suggestions on the best Linux for a Windows person (used a bit of Ubuntu/Mint but no expert) to run virtualised on a server with Windows 2008 server?

I find Ubuntu Server edition is fairly lightweight for use in a VM in windows, any debian based distro should be familiar if you have Ubuntu experience. You can get your full LAMP server up and running with just 'sudo tasksel install lamp-server'.

Choice of distro for a PHP set up is largely due to personal preference though, you'll be well supported on all of the major distros.

Originally Posted by mindnet

I'm undecided over the possible performance gains and ease of use of 2008 as opposed to the possible security benefits of 2003.

What benefit does 2003 have over 2008 in terms of security? My instinct would be the reverse.

Originally Posted by Blackfoot

What benefit does 2003 have over 2008 in terms of security? My instinct would be the reverse.

Windows 2008 has less security hot-fixes.

But as with any OS its down to configuration. If you don't know what you are doing the setup will be insecure no matter if its Win or Linux.

Performance wise Windows 2008 is top notch, you need a good 2Gb memory minimum but touch wood we haven't had a single crash or failure since August 2008. Far more stable than the 2k3 boxes when it comes to IIS etc.

Originally Posted by Dhosting

Originally Posted by Blackfoot

What benefit does 2003 have over 2008 in terms of security? My instinct would be the reverse.

Windows 2008 has less security hot-fixes.

I'm not sure how this would make Win 2003 more secure than 2008? Presumably both with up to date patches are safe from all known vulnerabilities.

Originally Posted by Blackfoot

I'm not sure how this would make Win 2003 more secure than 2008? Presumably both with up to date patches are safe from all known vulnerabilities.

Indeed, the only reason w2k8 has less hot-fixes is the issues have already been fixed before they released the OS.

Security isn't just about updates.