IIS Reviews

We use this program as application server.

What I like most about this program, is the fact that it's built into Windows, and then I also like the interface and the support.

I haven't yet come across anything that needs to improve. Perhaps the installation process can be simplified.

I have been using IIS for ten, twelve years now.

The stability is okay. It's fairly enterprise-grade and robust for enterprise use. 

The program is scalable. We have between 50 and 100 users.

Microsoft's technical support has always been very good, so I am satisfied with it.

We've used this platform from the beginning.

The initial setup was somewhere in the middle. It wasn't complicated but it wasn't easy either. The documentation isn't very good and the options are very complex.

I will definitely recommend this solution to others. On a scale from 1 to 10, I will give it an eight rating. 

The primary use case of this solution is for infrastructure, Active Directory, infrastructure functionality, such as DHCP, and also, it's the main operating system for virtual machines.

What I like the most is that it is easy to use.

The price could be reduced.

In the next release, I would like to see better integration between the cloud environment and the on-premises environment.

I have been working with this solution for twenty years.

The stability is better than it was in the past. It is better today than it was five years ago.

I am no longer involved in the technical areas anymore. Instead, I am a part of the trade sales team. In this role, I have contacted Microsoft for the commercial parts but not for support.

The initial setup is straightforward.

It is deployed in all environments, on-premises and on the cloud.

The price of the cloud system is a bit high.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The solution is very easy to use and offers a quick deployment.

We've never had any issues with the solution, but it's still nice to have overall improvements on it. It could be easier and faster to use, for example.

I've been using the solution for a few years now.

The solution is stable.

We have around 80 users on the solution currently.

We've never had any issue that required us to reach out to support. We've been satisfied with the solution overall.

Overall, the deployment was very fast. It didn't take long to set up.

The solution could offer better pricing.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

I'd recommend the product. I'd rate it eight out of ten.

The solution is easy to use and connects with Microsoft. 

The solution is very robust.

The documentation is not very detailed. They need to improve it and add to it. They should ensure there are lots of visuals to help users better understand the solution.

I've been using the solution for five years.

In the previous version, scalability was a bit difficult, but with the latest version, a lot of improvements have been made. It's getting better.

We don't use technical support. We do find there is a lot of community support online if we need it.

The solution is easy to setup. It's very easy to comprehend.

We implement the solution ourselves on behalf of clients.

We use the current version of the solution and the on-premises deployment model. We're partners with Microsoft. We generally work with enterprise-level organizations.

I'd recommend the solution, but only to those organizations already using Microsoft.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for application infrastructure.

The solution is easy to use.

The solution integrates well with most Microsoft products.

The solution doesn't integrate well with all Microsoft products. There are a few that actually don't integrate well with IIS.

If Microsoft IIS could work well with AppOptics or things like PHP, Python, and other custom languages that run on the webserver, it would be ideal. I think there are cases where people need to use Apache instead of IIS when IIS doesn't work well with other web languages.

I've been using the solution for ten years.

The solution is stable.

It's a good solution, but we don't use it on a large scale, so I'm not sure how well it scales. Currently, we have 250 users on it. Most are end-users, but we do have five admins on the solution as well.

We've never reached out to technical support. Mostly if we have issues, we look to community support for answers.

We also use Apache Web Server side by side with IIS.

The initial setup is very straightforward.

We handled the implementation ourselves.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

I'd recommend IIS for almost everything. I would suggest using use case scenarios.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We have a GIS solution from ESRI, ArcGIS Web Adaptor, and it is installed on top of IIS. It's part of ArcGIS Enterprise solution.

The graphical user interface makes it easy for users to configure the sites. 

This solution needs to be easier for cases where you want to have an IIS cluster. If you have several IIS solutions running, it is not clear on how to make them communicate to each other. Normally, IIS Web Server run independently on each server. To have "IIS cluster", currently you need to have a network load balancer (NLB) appliance running in front of them. We use NLB to distribute the load and have high-availability of IIS Web Server.

This solution is stable. However, because of the way IIS interacts with the application pool, it is possible that another application running in different application pool, can have an impact to other application pool. Theoretically, each application pool will have independent process and should not conflicting between each other.

This is something that we are looking into because we want to have IIS Web Server that can communicate between each other. So far, we cannot find this options inside it, anywhere on the menu.

In our office, we only have few people who use this solution and we don't have a plans to increase its usage. It is for internal publishing only.

But for our client, we implement this solution in production environment and so far, no critical issue happened to run IIS Web Server on it.

We have not been in contact with technical support. So far, we have been able to handle all issues.

The initial setup of this solution is simple. Even if you aren't familiar with it, it is not complex. If you are installing it inside Windows Server, it will take less than half an hour to deploy. In most cases, it can be done in fifteen minutes.

This solution comes included with Windows Server.

My advice for anybody who is considering this solution is to go ahead with it. This is a mature product that is suitable for production environment. It competes with the Linux-based web server, which has more features. However, Microsoft is becoming more friendly with the open-source community, so hopefully they will implement more advanced features inside IIS.

It seems to me that Microsoft has been evolving the product with one of the main goals to be ease of use. However, I think that they need to focus on handling the biggest load. 

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for the database and application system. We provide information systems for public and private companies.

The solution is easy to use, easy to maintain and isn't too technical. 

The solution's security needs improvement.

The solution should improve the cluster environment and load balancing.

Occasionally we have a problem with stability.

The scalability isn't so good. We have about 2,000 internal users, but externally we may have as many as one million users. Our service is public service. We do plan to increase usage.

We have a contract with technical support and they have helped us with issues in the past. We've been satisfied so far.

The solution is easy to set up. It took maybe an hour or two to deploy.

We use the private cloud deployment model.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. I'd recommend the solution.

We are a system integrator and this is one of the solutions that we assist our customers with. Our customers are primarily government departments, agencies, and ministries. These organizations are not very comfortable with using the cloud, so the majority of deployments are on-premises.

This solution is used for the customer's website or internal applications.

The areas of this solution that need improvement are monitoring, debugging, and troubleshooting. Having the monitoring as standard on the user interface would be nice.

There needs to be an easy way to escalate technical support issues beyond level one, quickly.

This is definitely a stable solution.

Scalability is neither here nor there. You can say it's scalable, but it's an open-ended question because you have to consider whether you can host an application or product for country-wide use. I'd like to say no, but it can be used as part of a scalable infrastructure.

We have contacted technical support, albeit rarely. I would rate them a six out of ten. It is not that they are slow to reply, but rather they are slow when it comes to understanding the problem. They often repeat the diagnostic steps that we have already performed.

The first level of support is not very good because by the time we speak with them, we are already past that point. This is because we do have experience and we can often solve the problems that are easy, or of medium-level difficulty. Consequently, if we have to open a support request then the problem is already difficult or complicated. We need to be able to escalate quickly. This is true in most cases, and the delay comes about because of the entry-level support people.

In addition to this solution, we have worked with Apache Tomcat for Linux.

The choice of solution is dictated by the customer's requirements. If it is a Java application then we need to use Tomcat or Apache. If it's a .NET application in use then you need to use the IIS. It isn't a personal choice, or whether one is better than the other. Rather, it is about the application.

The initial setup of this solution is very easy. The deployment takes between thirty minutes and two hours, maximum.

Usually, it will take one or two people to maintain this solution, including the website, if the whole infrastructure is Microsoft.

We implement and deploy this solution for our customers. We have an internal technical team for this.

This is a solution that I can recommend.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for a publishing website.

The solution is the easiest way to publish applications which have been designed by older development tools.

Different parameters in this product can be a bit difficult. As soon as you introduce something new, and especially in the Microsoft environment, you always need to do new training sessions to understand what are new functionalities are. Finding the correct options are not more intuitive, and it should be.

The solution is very stable.

The scalability depends on how you have set it up. If you're running IIS on a single server, it might not be as capable as if you are on many in a cluster or with load balancing and so on.

We don't a contact for technical support, so I mostly have to cross my fingers and hope that nothing goes wrong.

I wasn't around for the initial setup, but I can say that we started fairly simple, and it's grown more and more complex as time has gone on.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

The solution is stable, it is working, and you can do a lot with this, but it is not my favorite product. I would prefer to use something that was open-source instead. I would rate it seven out of ten.

It allowed us to set up and use a Windows Server we had in place already to host our internal web page.

It is a lightweight web host that is easy to configure for simple webpages.

Finding different settings can be difficult if you don't know where to look.

Stability seems good.

We have not needed to scale out with it, as we use it for very lightweight things.

I have not needed to contact technical support.

I have tried other tools (such as Apache), and found that IIS is more stable and easier on the memory for low resource systems.

Initial setup is straightforward for a basic setup (e.g. one host hosting HTTP traffic), but can get more complicated the more features you want to add (e.g. Windows Authentication, HTTPs, web farm, etc.).

It is licensed with your Windows installation which makes it relatively cheap if you already have a Windows Server sitting around.

We also evaluated Apache, but found that IIS was easier to set up for what we wanted.

Give it a shot. The features are included for free with Windows, so test it out. If you are unhappy, it is easy to disable and switch to a different solution.

• Clustering
• Application isolation

It needs a more compact configuration.

I've used it for one year.

No issues encountered.

It depends on the load of the server, but we have not had an issue.

No issues encountered.

I've not used customer service.

I've not used technical support.

We switched because of the nature of the application and technology.

I always design my systems simple and keep them simple as possible.

We implemented it with in-house team. We like to keep the knowledge in-house.

It was crucial and it definitely paid off.

Keep the systems simple. Try to work with open-source solutions and pay for technical support and subscription to support the projects.

Yes, I always and regularly evaluate. In case of Java we evaluated all applications servers which support JEE full profile.

I was using Apache Tomcat, JBoss AS (RedHat), WebMethods (Software AG) and IIS (Microsoft). All of them have they specialities, but depending on the goals and purpose it’s quiet easy to make a choice. Products based on Microsoft .NET do not give companies lot of options; either with Server Operating System shipped IIS, or the developer version called IIS Express. Applications written in Java, n opposite, can be accommodated on several fully profiled or non-fully-profiled application or web servers.

Only have one application per server if possible. Do not over complicate it, and keep the variance in the configuration simple as possible.

• Easy to set-up
• Good to maintain

This made the security set-up easier and authentication simplified.

• Logging
• Monitoring

I've used Microsoft NPS for four years.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered but always gor for two machines as one isn't enough and isn't fault redundant.

Haven't needed it yet.

Haven't needed it yet.

Yes, we used RSA Radius. It was very hard to maintain and outdated.

Straightforward, it's a feature of Windows Server and a basic knowledge of the radius principles are enough.

In-house implementation.

Pretty good. Authentication for network appliances, load balancing products and wireless devices became easy to do.

It came with the Microsoft contract.

No, we were unhappy with RSA Radius so we went for the 'free' solution.

It has many features, make sure they satisfy your needs.