Frank

Mr. Arnold wrote:

>
>> mr happy, aka doris day is an ms hating, unemployed linux loser troll.
>> He hates everyone...except other linux loser trolls.
>> Oh yeah, and he's an "expert" on everything...just ask him.
>> Frank
>
>
> That's Doris Day? That lunatic hit the trash bin after two days of
> watching its nonsense in a MS NG. It's of no interest to me -- none.
>
> Now, it has shape shifted to another posting name.
>
>
Yep, 'shake hands (OMG!) with mr happy".
He/she/it must of gotten laid (eeks!) :-)
Frank

MarkoM109

I came across this thread while trying to figure out some firewall issues in forwarding the **CORRECT** types of request to a Vista machine in my domain that is meant to be a publically exposed test server. Since everyone - save one - that has replied has seemed more interested in stating how much they know instead of addressing the question, I'll take a stab.

First - You shouldn't be hosting a website unless you have the proper hardware infrastructure. While Server 2003 offers greater OS-level protection against attack out of the box than Vista does, Vista offers the ability to turn off unused IIS features - so I consider them about equally open to attack. The solution, of course, is to have a hardware/software solution (such as ISA) controlling all traffic to your domain and applying rules unilaterally. Obviously this isn't a fix-all-apply-everywhere solution, but it would work in your case.

Second - The windows firewall and user access control features in Vista make hosting a pain, so if you want an easy(ier) solution, stick with a Server 2003 product. Either SBS or Standard.

Third - There was a post about up/down speed where it was stated that "download" speed is what matters. Quite the contrary... Your server's upload speed is the maximum amount of information you can send TO the internet, which means it is the maximum amount all connections can pull FROM your site. 600kbs is pretty slow. You can probably get by in the short term if you bump to symmetrical 1.5/1.5 service, but for 40,000 concurrent users, you need a much more robust solution.

Fourth - I am a small business owner, and I understand that you probably came to this forum because it is difficult to spend money on a consultant when there is so much information available for free. The truth is, though, that hosting yourself should only be a short-term solution without some professional help. There are some great hosting sites out there (webhost4life is a good and affordable one) that offer everything from shared hosting to full-blown dedicated servers. With many of these services, a dedicated server is equitable to what you're paying for your business class line, and the only real difference is that you don't have access to the physical machine.

So there you are. If you insist on hosting yourself, please make sure you're protected at your first point of control over the connection. From there, use the platform that best supports your application. If you can afford it, and you don't want to deal with an endless supply of frustrating hurdles, get a professional consultant to work on the security of your system or go for a high-rated hosted solution.

Best of luck to you!