My company is bringing all of it's website and online store sites back in-house, to be hosted on one of our own servers. I have just a general question: for an application such as this, is Windows 2000 Server better than 2003 Server, or vice versa? I've heard that 2000 is better for that, but no solid information. I just want to get a feel for any pitfalls or advantages of one over the other. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks.
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations strongm on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
In-house website hosting - better on Win2k or 2k3 Server?
- Thread starter JD5241
- Start date
Windows 2003 without a question. It's a little faster, slightly more scalable, much more secure, and will be supported longer going forward. Windows 2000 mainstream support ends sometime this year I believe (though they will still provide free security patches for some time yet).
A agree, WIndows 2003 is far better. You can backup the configuration of individual web sites which is really important to me. With IIS 5 on Windows 2000 you have to save at the server level. It is less reliable in my experience.
I hope you find this post helpful.
Regards,
Mark
Check out my scripting solutions at
Work SMARTER not HARDER. The Spider's Parlor's Admin Script Pack is a collection of Administrative scripts designed to make IT Administration easier! Save time, get more work done, get the Admin Script Pack.
I hope you find this post helpful.
Regards,
Mark
Check out my scripting solutions at
Work SMARTER not HARDER. The Spider's Parlor's Admin Script Pack is a collection of Administrative scripts designed to make IT Administration easier! Save time, get more work done, get the Admin Script Pack.
LWComputingMVP
IS-IT--Management
Is this an e-commerce website? If so, hosting it yourself may not be the wisest idea.
- Thread starter
- #5
It is an e-commerce site, and we did debate hosting it offsite... but it ties directly in to our operational software/databases, kind of brings everything all together (online orders, shipping, billing, etc.), and since we have the hardware available and the support from the vendor, it's going to be best for us in the long run.
2003 seems to be the consensus so far, if anyone else has any tips or ideas, keep them coming. Thanks!
2003 seems to be the consensus so far, if anyone else has any tips or ideas, keep them coming. Thanks!
Security, security, security. And did I mention security?
Not knowing anything about your company, I don't know what their track record is on security. But typically when you outsource e-commerce hosting then you're going with a company that specializes in handling e-commerce transactions. If it's a good company then they will have security processes and procedures that your security people probably would have never considered, and they will be able to spend significantly more on securing transactions than you will.
I don't say that to be disrespectful, but your company specializes in making something. E-commerce hosts specialize in securely processing E-commerce transactions. When it comes to something that is potentially that important, it might be worth letting the specialists do what they're good at.
Not knowing anything about your company, I don't know what their track record is on security. But typically when you outsource e-commerce hosting then you're going with a company that specializes in handling e-commerce transactions. If it's a good company then they will have security processes and procedures that your security people probably would have never considered, and they will be able to spend significantly more on securing transactions than you will.
I don't say that to be disrespectful, but your company specializes in making something. E-commerce hosts specialize in securely processing E-commerce transactions. When it comes to something that is potentially that important, it might be worth letting the specialists do what they're good at.
LWComputingMVP
IS-IT--Management
The problem with hosting your own e-commerce site is that you (most likely) cannot provide the same kind of reliability that a web host could. And kmcferrin's point is excellent as well.
For example, do you have redundant internet connections that take different paths to their POPs? Do you have a backup generator and UPS systems to keep things going in the event of a power outage?
Ask yourselves how much you would lose in revenue if there was a big storm and you were offline for a day... or even an hour. I don't know what you sell, but if your site generates 1000's per day or more, this could be a real problem. Not only that, but if the site goes unavailable, you're losing potential customers who click once... maybe twice, and move on to a competitor.
Most databases support ODBC and you may be able to arrange with an ISP to have their server setup a connection to you via ODBC and IPSEC or something similar for security.
At the very least, I'd recommend running it from a co-location facility.
For example, do you have redundant internet connections that take different paths to their POPs? Do you have a backup generator and UPS systems to keep things going in the event of a power outage?
Ask yourselves how much you would lose in revenue if there was a big storm and you were offline for a day... or even an hour. I don't know what you sell, but if your site generates 1000's per day or more, this could be a real problem. Not only that, but if the site goes unavailable, you're losing potential customers who click once... maybe twice, and move on to a competitor.
Most databases support ODBC and you may be able to arrange with an ISP to have their server setup a connection to you via ODBC and IPSEC or something similar for security.
At the very least, I'd recommend running it from a co-location facility.
Security again...
Do you plan on multiple servers in case of the initial servers failure or load sharing? At least a secondary server is needed, preferable away from the original site. Then you have backup or replication issues, broadband lines would also need redundancy. An expensive proposition.
........................................
Chernobyl disaster..a must see pictorial
Do you plan on multiple servers in case of the initial servers failure or load sharing? At least a secondary server is needed, preferable away from the original site. Then you have backup or replication issues, broadband lines would also need redundancy. An expensive proposition.
........................................
Chernobyl disaster..a must see pictorial
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question