您如何比较 IIS 和 IIS？卡西尼号作为生产服务器？
我有一个 ASP.NET 网站，当前在 IIS 上运行。现在我想将该站点移至卡西尼号上运行。
Cassini 与 IIS 相比有哪些优势？它的缺点是什么？
您使用 Cassini 作为生产网络服务器的体验如何？
I have an ASP.NET website which is running currently on IIS. Now I want to move that site to run on Cassini.
What are the advantages of Cassini over IIS? What are its disadvantages?
What are your experiences using Cassini as a production web-server?
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（6）
据我所知，您不能在生产中使用 Cassini，因为它仅侦听本地主机请求。您必须自行修改源代码并重新编译网络服务器。
另一件事是，IIS 构建在 http.sys 内核级库之上，以实现最大性能。我不熟悉最新的 Cassini 版本，但上次我检查时，它使用了较慢的托管 TCP 套接字。
如果您的网站不是很受欢迎，而 Cassini 具有您需要的所有功能，为什么不呢...Cassini 没有任何问题。它是简单的 Web 服务器，但它不是 IIS 的唯一替代方案。
有深渊，UltiDev Cassini 和我认为其他一些支持 ASP.NET 的开源服务器。
As far as I know, you cannot use Cassini in production because it listens for localhost requests only. You will have to modify source code and recompile the webserver by yourself.
Another thing is that IIS is built on top of http.sys kernel-level library for maximum performance. I'm not familiar with the latest Cassini versions but last time I checked, it used slower managed TCP sockets.
If your website is not very popular and Cassini has all the features you need, why not... there is nothing wrong with Cassini. It's simple webserver but it's not the only alternative to IIS.
There is Abyss, UltiDev Cassini and I think a few other open-source servers with ASP.NET support.
UltiDev Web Server Pro 是一个免费的、可再发行的、轻量级 Web 服务器，具有许多适用于 ASP.NET 应用程序的企业级功能（从 ASP.NET 1.1 到 4）。与卡西尼号不同，它的设计并不妨碍它为面向互联网的应用程序提供服务。新的 UWS Pro 由 UltiDev Cassini 分支的供应商 UltiDev 创建，在功能上更接近 IIS，而不是 Cassini。 更多屏幕截图。
。
UltiDev Web Server Pro is a free, redistributable, light-weight web server with lots of enterprise-level feature for ASP.NET applications (from ASP.NET 1.1 to 4). Unlike Cassini, its design has nothing precluding it from serving Internet-facing applications. Created by UltiDev, the vendor of UltiDev Cassini fork, new UWS Pro is functionally closer to IIS than to Cassini. More screenshots.
.
简单的选择：在生产中根本不可能使用 Cassini，因为它无法从远程计算机访问（它只侦听本地主机）。
Easy choice: it's simply not possible to use Cassini in production, because it's not accessible from remote machines (it only listens on localhost).
我想说，如果您正在寻找替代服务器，那么您最好选择一些经过证明可以处理扩展的东西，例如 apache 上的 mod_mono。
iis 的集成管道、路由、压缩和缓存功能很难复制。但是，如果不了解根级别的操作系统和网络堆栈，应用程序池和故障快速响应的工作就很难完成。
Cassini 并不声称是多线程的，也没有处理任何高级电子标签或其他可能与 iis 相关的标头控制问题，但在更高版本的 iis 中通常也会设置为合理的默认值。
为了完整起见，您可以使用较旧的 Rails-Mongrels 模型，在端口 10100 - 10110 上启动 10 个 cassini，然后使用 ngenx 或 apache 在这些线程上加载平衡请求，并使用监视工具将请求重做到新线程当旧的出去吃午饭并不断重新启动 2 个左右的端口时，线程会发生，因为你会超载。
I would say you are better off, going with something proven to handle scaling, like mod_mono on apache if you are looking for alternative servers.
The integrated pipeline, routing, compression and caching features of iis are hard to replicate. But the app pool and failure rapid response stuff is hard to do without knowledge of the OS and the network stack at a root level.
Cassini doesn't claim to be multi threaded or handle any of the advanced e-tags or other header control issues that can be issues with iis, but are also usually set at sensible defaults in later versions of iis.
For the sake of completeness, you could do the older rails-mongrels model, spin up say 10 cassini's on ports 10100 - 10110, then use ngenx or apache to load ballance requests on those threads, and using a monitoring tool to redo requests to new threads when old ones go out to lunch and constantly be restarting 2 or so ports, because you get overloaded.
StackOverflow 对 Cassini 和 IIS 进行了很好的比较
There is a good comparison of Cassini and IIS here at StackOverflow
您不可能从角度来看 cassini 或其任何衍生产品，并考虑将其用作开发/测试服务器之外的任何东西。
There is no possible angle you can look at cassini or any of it's derivatives and consider using it as anything other than a development/testing server.