Microsoft's Servers?

[some.dude]

I'm in the middle of a debate, and I searched around online with not much success. Does anyone have any credible proof(links) of what servers Microsoft uses? Like www.microsoft.com, maybe some of there other services... Do they use Windows?

Thanks!

[jcarle]

Although I don't know what hardware they run on, I know they run Windows Server 2003, IIS 6.0 and .NET 2.0. Other then that, it's anyone's guess.

[Idontwantspam]

Well, I don't know for sure, but I imagine they use Windows Server. Somehow, I don't see Microsoft using Linux servers. That would be ironic! :rollyes:

I imagine that since they're so big, they can't switch too fast, so they probably mostly have Windows Server 2000 and Windows Server 2003, maybe a few with Windows Server Longhorn, but I doubt it.

[Stoic Joker]

Actually they use both Windows & Linux server (always have), go to www.netcraft.com and check it out.

[3aces]

Actually they use both Windows & Linux server (always have), go to www.netcraft.com and check it out.

They do infact use Linux servers as well...........now they must have a reason for that!!

[Guest ytrewq]

AFAIK they don't use linux *at all* (Win 2003 everywhere).

Disregard any entry on netcraft that says "Akamai Technologies" -- those are not Microsoft's servers, they're Akamai's (they use their services).

I know they're also using some high-end Sun servers for some things, but they also run Windows.

Find a non-Akamai entry that says Linux and I'll believe it (well, only after checking it out manually)

[fizban2]

How Microsoft Does IT

check here to see how microsoft does all their IT stuff. computer specs and

[Stoic Joker]

AFAIK they don't use linux *at all* (Win 2003 everywhere).

Disregard any entry on netcraft that says "Akamai Technologies" -- those are not Microsoft's servers, they're Akamai's (they use their services).

I know they're also using some high-end Sun servers for some things, but they also run Windows.

Find a non-Akamai entry that says Linux and I'll believe it (well, only after checking it out manually)

Um... If we define Microsoft's servers as what is physically at One Microsoft Way ... then OK I'll concede the point as all being a mixture of Win2000 & Win2003 machines.

However if we define it as any machine that is hosting content for the microsoft.com parent domain ... then Akamia's servers do count, and are Linux machines. i.microsoft.com, i2.microsoft.com, and i3.microsoft.com are all Akamia servers, that run Linux, and send you directly to Microsoft's home page.

So ... Does Microsoft use all Windows servers? Yes.

Does Microsoft's content hosting use all Windows servers? ...No!

[Guest ytrewq]

Um... If we define Microsoft's servers as what is physically at One Microsoft Way ...

I wouldn't put such an artificial limitation. They have server farms in multiple places (like for their live services) -- all running windows.

However if we define it as any machine that is hosting content for the microsoft.com parent domain ...

That's equally bad (if not worse) than the previous statement. They point a DNS entry to a caching/download service. That doesn't make it their servers. They're not MS-owned, MS-managed or anything like that. It's a different company's assets altogether. A DNS entry means absolutely nothing.

They're not in the "internet backbone" business. And It makes no sense for them to spend tons more $ in bandwidth offering all their downloads from one central location (would be pretty difficult too). With huge files like they are spreading lately (XP SP2, 2003 SP2, VS Orcas Beta, VHD images, etc) it only makes sense to use another company' services and pay only for the bandwidth used.

They don't use linux. They use another company's services (who so happens to use linux, but it's mostly irrelevant, they could be hosting files using any platform, it's just a matter of having enough servers located in the right locations).

You just can't say "MS uses linux", much less "always have". The only non-Windows thing they have used themselves (and not some company which happens to have a contract with them) was FreeBSD for hotmail (pre-migration).

[jcarle]

If anything was to happen Microsoft would simply incorporate some of Linux's features and/or code into Windows, why use a competing product for themselves, it makes no sense.

[cluberti]

Microsoft does keep many different products, including Mac, Unix, and Linux OSes, in it's labs for customers to test their products and their configuration scenarios - and also for testing interop (like SFU, SFM, etc). The stuff you see originating from the microsoft.com domain is all Windows and IIS, although Akamai is used to cache content around the world, and they do use Linux and Unix for their caching services.

I believe fizban already posted the link to how Microsoft's IT is configured, but anyone thinking that MS is slow might want to reconsider - Microsoft tends to migrate to new products quickly (usually already dogfood'ing them in large quantities by the end of pre-RTM) rather than slowly.

[Stoic Joker]

Um... If we define Microsoft's servers as what is physically at One Microsoft Way ...

I wouldn't put such an artificial limitation. They have server farms in multiple places (like for their live services) -- all running windows.

*sigh* Exactly what is "artificial" about a physical address...? It's an example used for contrast and doesn't require that I list every possible (real live actual) physical location owned by them that just might happen have a box connected to the rest of the world that does stuff.

However if we define it as any machine that is hosting content for the microsoft.com parent domain ...

That's equally bad (if not worse) than the previous statement. They point a DNS entry to a caching/download service. That doesn't make it their servers. They're not MS-owned, MS-managed or anything like that. It's a different company's assets altogether. A DNS entry means absolutely nothing.

Really... It means nothing, other than it is part of the parent namespace (e.g. Microsoft). Does it make it one of their servers? No. Does it make it part of their hosting strategy (being that it falls under their namespace & "hosts their files) ... (oops!) Yes.

They're not in the "internet backbone" business. And It makes no sense for them to spend tons more $ in bandwidth offering all their downloads from one central location (would be pretty difficult too). With huge files like they are spreading lately (XP SP2, 2003 SP2, VS Orcas Beta, VHD images, etc) it only makes sense to use another company' services and pay only for the bandwidth used.

So it's cheaper to pay for the bandwidth, than it is to just pay for the bandwidth?

Yes, I know what you meant ... I just couldn't resist having a bit of fun.

But that is the key to the "Always Have" part as MS has been using Akamai's servers to handle their peek traffic loads for years. Not just lately because of a sudden abundance of Hugh, popular files.

They don't use linux. They use another company's services (who so happens to use linux, but it's mostly irrelevant, they could be hosting files using any platform, it's just a matter of having enough servers located in the right locations).

Now you see it's the "Mostly Irrelevant" part I'm driving at...It's not Completely Irrelevant, just mostly ... Which doesn't quit make it totally ignorable.

You just can't say "MS uses linux", much less "always have". The only non-Windows thing they have used themselves (and not some company which happens to have a contract with them) was FreeBSD for hotmail (pre-migration).

Sure I can ... It's a free country. Now if it offends somebody... Well, I'll just have to report to have myself horse whipped later.

Hay I'm not saying that MS is using *niX because their stuff sucks & can't take the weight. Because ThaT would not be true. I'm simply stating the fact that one can go to MS's site, download one of MS's files, and have it come off a Linux box ... because the little buggers do in reality exist within their domains namespace.

It's a matter of view point, I can either look at things from inside the "box" creating hard definitions based on what is within the broadcast zone of the local LAN. Or... I can look at the "Big Picture", the Internet as a whole and break things up based on the registered TLD. ICANN does, and the Internet's main DNS root servers agree. While they are divided into groups that each only service their given TLD classes they are still all part of the Internet's (FQDN) '.' Zone. e.g. You're right a pit-bull is not a poodle ... But they are both dogs.

Remember the Internet is just one big shared global network that uses human readable domain names to define who's who.

[#rootworm]

Stoic Joker, just give it up. you got pwned fair and square, and in case you missed it: Akamai != Microsoft.