Opinion on my webserver's performance

I'd like to know if I am using my web server efficiently in comparison to
other people with similar hardware.

I am aware that I have a lower level machine and I'd like to point out that
I am not very proficient with webservers but know enough for general
administration.

I have a 1.4 Ghz Celeron, 512 mb ram, 10 mbps NIC webserver running Windows
2000 Server and IIS 5. It consistently serves very close to 400 gigabytes
of monthly traffic.

Served content includes static as well as dynamic web pages:

- regular html pages and images
- real time topsite ranking 'cgi' (written in C++)
- webpage referral system 'cgi' (written in C++)
- domain name isapi filter (written in C++) that stops people from stealing
your bandwidth when attempting to link to your images from other websites.
- website hit statistics 'isapi' program (commercial)
- mail server 'service' program (commercial)
- and other lower usage cgi applications (written in C++) such as form mail
and voting,
etc...

My server never exceeds 175mb of ram consumption and the processor usage
runs between 40-75%.

So in a nutshell, I'd like to get some input as to how my internet server
and applications fare in comparison to other peoples internet servers and
applications. I've designed my dynamic applications to run efficiently but
not as efficiently as possible which would mean converting single process
CGIs to multi-threaded ISAPIs.

Thank you very much for your comments.

Fernie

P.S. Truthfully, I'd like to be running on Apache but I simply can't take
the time to learn it as well as Linux at this time. The only reason that I
chose Windows is because I was already familiar with it, meaning a smaller
learning curve.



--

ELKNews FREE Edition - Empower your News Reader! http://www.atozedsoftware.com

"Fernie" <Fernie@not_thisDocSignings.net> wrote in
news:5849651F71BAE240Fernie@not_thisDocSignings.ne t:

> P.S. Truthfully, I'd like to be running on Apache but I simply can't
> take the time to learn it as well as Linux at this time. The only
> reason that I chose Windows is because I was already familiar with it,
> meaning a smaller learning curve.
>
Were you aware that you can run Apache on Windows?

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available

"No 33 Secretary" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95D3790CFEB1taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3 .50...
> "Fernie" <Fernie@not_thisDocSignings.net> wrote in
> news:5849651F71BAE240Fernie@not_thisDocSignings.ne t:
>
>> P.S. Truthfully, I'd like to be running on Apache but I simply can't
>> take the time to learn it as well as Linux at this time. The only
>> reason that I chose Windows is because I was already familiar with it,
>> meaning a smaller learning curve.
>>
> Were you aware that you can run Apache on Windows?
>
> --
> Terry Austin
> www.hyperbooks.com
> Campaign Cartographer now available

Yes, I had heard and I'm sure that it would work fine. I lease my server
and the fact that I am running Windows 2000 Server costs me an extra $29USD
per month. If I were to go Apache, I'd want to run Linux to avoid those
costs. Maybe what I'll do at some point is get a PC, load Linux on it and
learn how to use it.

Regards,

Fernie



--

ELKNews FREE Edition - Empower your News Reader! http://www.atozedsoftware.com