I have finished developing a webapplication on Visual Studio 2012 along with Microsoft SQL 2008. I'm trying to make it a "live" webapp which can be accessed through the phone rather than a localhost.
I researched and found 2 solutions which are
IIS
Azure
I have been looking all over the net for various clear explaination of the main difference between IIS and Azure. From my understanding, IIS is a web server application that comes with Windows Server and is used to serve up web sites while Azure is a Windows hosting solution that utilizes IIS. In that case why do people still uses IIS while Azure provide both a cloud platform and IIS?
Which is also better to host any typical web-application that used to run on the localhost?
I can't seems to find any thread in SO or ASP.Net forum which can clearly explain the main difference between the two along with the advantage and disadvantage.
Here are some of the link1, link2 i have found that provide brief information about the two.
What you are looking for is actually a place to run your web application, Teo.
As you've found, you can do that in IIS if you have a server that is connected to the Internet. A way to get such a server is to either got to a hosting company or just use the Windows Azure cloud as you've found as well.
One of the simplest ways for you to do this right now and for free is to sign up for a Windows Azure trial account. As part of that account you get a basic, shared Windows Azure Website for free.
Here are the links you need:
(1) http://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/develop/net/tutorials/get-started/
(2) http://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/pricing/free-trial/
I would strongly recommend that you go through the entire tutorial (1) step-by-step before trying to do this with your own application. Before you start, sign up for a trial account (2). You will not be charged in the first month and you will not be charged if you stick with the free website.
Enjoy.
Comparing IIS to Azure is irrelevant. Those are two different concepts, which are vaguely related to each other. You lack some very basic understanding of what each one means, and I recommend you to go and read about each them from scratch.
IIS is indeed a web server application. That means, for example, that it can rout HTTP request and responds to and from the web site application that you have created.
To keep it simple, let's say that IIS can run on any Windows machine, which makes the machine a Web Server.
If you want to have your web site up and running, you need either have your own machine that acts as a web server, or either upload your web site application to some other machine.
Azure is a group of cloud services. One of the services is a Web Site Host, that allows you to use cloud computers to run the IIS that hosts your web site.
As part of the service, Azure will take care of installing and using the IIS server for you.
Bottom line, if you are going the Windows path, you will probably end up using Both Azure and IIS (unless you will want to self host your web site...)
We have a production application (Classic ASP, IIS 7.5) that uses the IIS Default Website and a virtual directory. The application accesses documents from a document share. It works and has worked for many years.
Recently we have added a number of new web applications all under Default Web Site and we are attempting to separate them out into their own IIS Websites. So, we setup a new IIS Website and used a binding to get the application to use the new web site and used the same application pool pointing to the exact same code. (note: our application uses subdomains to point to different databases so we just took one subdomain and binded it to the new site).
For some reason, the documents that are accessible from the Default Web Site are not accessible in the new website. But given that both are using the same application pool and thus share the same application pool identity, how is it possible that one website can access the share, but the other cannot?
More info. we have tried using a domain user as the app pool identity and NETWORKSERVICE both of which work in the Default, neither of which work in the new web site. Also, how are we accessing the documents? We have an ASP file which simply uses the ADO Stream object and we reference the file using "\\docserver\documents..." (which again, is the same in both websites as they are both looking at the same code.
What are the material differences between the new Azure Web Sites and the traditional Azure Web Roles for an ASP.NET MVC application? What reason would I choose a "web site" over a "web role" or vice versa?
Let's assume that I would need equal capacity in either case (e.g. 2 small instances). The prices seem comparable other than the fact that there is a 33% temporary discount for web sites while they are in their preview period.
Are there things that I can do with a "web site" that are difficulty or impossible with a web role? For example, does it become easy to put multiple web sites in a single set of VMs using "web sites"? Do I lose anything with a "web site" vs a "web role"? Ability to fine tune IIS? Ability to use the Cache service locally?
Web Roles give you several features beyond Web Apps (formerly Web Sites):
Ability to run elevated startup scripts to install apps, modify registry settings, install performance counters, fine-tune IIS, etc.
Ability to split an app up into tiers (maybe Web Role for front end, Worker Role for backend processing) and scale independently
Ability to RDP into your VM for debugging purposes
Network isolation
Dedicated virtual IP address, which allows web role instances in a cloud service to access IP-restricted Virtual Machines
ACL-restricted endpoints (added in Azure SDK 2.3, April 2014)
Support for any TCP/UDP ports (Web Sites are restricted to TCP 80/443)
Web Apps have advantages over Web Roles though:
Near-instant deployment with deployment history / rollbacks
Visual Studio Online, github, local git, ftp, CodePlex, DropBox, BitBucket deployment support
Ability to roll out one of numerous CMS's and frameworks, (like WordPress, Joomla, Django, MediaWiki, etc.)
Use of SQL Database or MySQL
Simple and fast to scale from free tier to shared tier to dedicated tier
Web Jobs
Backups of Web Site content
Built-in web-based debugging tools (simple cmd/powershell debug console, process explorer, diagnostic tools like log streaming, etc.)
With the April 2014 and September 2014 rollouts, there are now some features common to both Web Apps and Web Roles (and Worker Roles), including:
Staging+production slots
Wildcard DNS, SSL certificates
Visual Studio integration
Traffic Manager support
Virtual Network support
Here's a screengrab I took from the Web Sites gallery selection form:
I think Web Apps are a great way to get up and running quickly, where you can move from shared to reserved resources. Once you outgrow this, you can then move up to Web Roles and expand as you need.
EDIT 2014: For what it's worth, a lot of the info in this answer is no longer correct - see comments.
Add more to #David response:
With Windows Azure Websites, you don't have control over IIS or web Server because you are using a resources slice along with hundreds of other website on the same machine, you are sharing resources like any other so there is no control over IIS.
The big difference between a website shared and Azure web role is that a web-site is considered process bound while roles are VM bound.
Websites are stored on a content share which is accessible from all the "web servers" in the farm so there is no replication or anything like that required.
Windows Azure websites can not have their own host name instead they must use websitename.azurewebsites.net only and you sure can use CNAME setting in your DNS provider to route your request exactly same with previous Windows Azure Role only when they are running in reserved mode. CNAME setting is not supported for shared websites.
I've just posted a comprehensive blog post on this very subject at http://robdmoore.id.au/blog/2012/06/09/windows-azure-web-sites-vs-web-roles/.
An excerpt from my conclusion: If you need enormous scale, SSL, Asian or West US data centres, a non-standard configuration (of IIS, ports, diagnostics, security certs or start up scripts), RDP or cost-effective Worker Roles (combined with your Web Role) then you are going to have to stick to Web Roles for now.
Otherwise, Web Sites is a great option!
Azure Web Role is like a virtual private host. You get a VM that acts as your web server, and you own that VM instance.
Azure Web Sites are like an elastic shared hosting service. You deploy your app to a web server that is not controlled by you and which also servers other users' sites. You can scale your site up and down (at some extra charge) to make it more elastic as your resource needs shift.
There is one more scenario that is up the air: After these 500 exceptions are eliminated, they haven't said anything about the ability of Azure Websites to handle wildcard CNAME's. Several of us are using Nate's Web Role Accelerator in Cloud Services, becuase a one-line hack provided wildcard subdomain capability in Nate's software. We can't move these wildcard subdomain apps until we know that Azure Websites will be able to handle them. If it won't ever be able to do that, then it goes down as a positive on the Web Role side of the equation. Also of note is that with pricing being exactly the same (after the preview discount expires), I'm not sure I want to give up my access to RDC and Event Viewer (just to mention two things).
Azure Web Sites enables you to build highly scalable web sites quickly on Azure. You can use the Azure Portal or the command-line tools to set up a web site with popular languages such as .NET, PHP, Node.js, and Python. Supported frameworks are already deployed and do not require more installation steps. The Azure Web Sites gallery contains many third-party applications, such as Drupal and WordPress as well as development frameworks such as Django and CakePHP. After creating a site, you can either migrate an existing web site or build a completely new web site. Web Sites eliminates the need to manage the physical hardware, and it also provides several scaling options. You can move from a shared multi-tenant model to a standard mode where dedicated machines service incoming traffic. Web Sites also enable you to integrate with other Azure services, such as SQL Database, Service Bus, and Storage. Using the Azure WebJobs SDK preview, you can add background processing. In summary, Azure Web Sites make it easier to focus on application development by supporting a wide range of languages, open source applications, and deployment methodologies (FTP, Git, Web Deploy, or TFS). If you don’t have specialized requirements that require Cloud Services or Virtual Machines, an Azure Web Site is most likely the best choice.
Cloud Services enable you to create highly-available, scalable web applications in a rich Platform as a Service (PaaS) environment. Unlike Web Sites, a cloud service is created first in a development environment, such as Visual Studio, before being deployed to Azure. Frameworks, such as PHP, require custom deployment steps or tasks that install the framework on role startup. The main advantage of Cloud Services is the ability to support more complex multitier architectures. A single cloud service could consist of a frontend web role and one or more worker roles. Each tier can be scaled independently. There is also an increased level of control over your web application infrastructure. For example, you can remote desktop onto the machines that are running the role instances. You can also script more advanced IIS and machine configuration changes that run at role startup, including tasks that require administrator control.
Virtual Machines enable you to run web applications on virtual machines in Azure. This capability is also known as Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS). Create new Windows Server or Linux machines through the portal, or upload an existing virtual machine image. Virtual Machines give you the most control over the operating system, configuration, and installed software and services. This is a good option for quickly migrating complex on-premises web applications to the cloud, because the machines can be moved as a whole. With Virtual Networks, you can also connect these virtual machines to on-premises corporate networks. As with Cloud Services, you have remote access to these machines and the ability to perform configuration changes at the administrative level. However, unlike Web Sites and Cloud Services, you must manage your virtual machine images and application architecture completely at the infrastructure level. One basic example is that you have to apply your own patches to the operating system.
See updated and comprehensive comparison from this link: http://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/documentation/articles/choose-web-site-cloud-service-vm/
Azure Websites, Web Workers and Virtual Machines are three different computing approaches available on Windows Azure. They differ in the level of control and responsibilities:
Azure Website have lowest level of control, but you don't care about keeping in health virtual machine and IIS, because Azure stuff do this for you
Web Roles give you more control (traffic manager, remote desktop), but more administration is possible on your side which means that you can break something via remote desktop for example
Virtual Machines gives you full control of VM, so require the most administration efforts.
There is no one best choice, because it depends on what level of control you need, what features you need and what you want to leave Azure stuff to maintain. And it is big topic..
Please look at this articles for more information to make more informed choice:
http://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/documentation/articles/choose-web-site-cloud-service-vm/
http://davidpallmann.blogspot.com/2012/06/reintroducing-windows-azure-part-2.html
It boils down to tradeoff between ease of use and capabilities.
Two more things I found was cost of getting SSL for a custom domain site and Multi-tenant configurations.
For website you need to pay monthly on top of standard instance (Small instance is the cheapest option). This means in order to get custom domain https would cost you ~70/month for small instance plus ~41/ month for SSL that supports all browser.
For WebRole you can get XS instance and add your own SSL for free, which means ~$15 per month
and you have a custom domain with SSL.
For multi-tenant website check out
Multi-tenant Azure dynamic wildcard CName
A web role is a virtual machine that hosts multiple websites
This is a common question, and I would like to give out an excerpt from msdn.
Access to services like Caching, Service Bus, Storage, SQL Azure Database- WebSite:Yes WebRole:Yes
Support for ASP.NET, classic ASP, Node.js, PHP- WebSite: Yes WebRole:Yes
Shared content and configuration- WebSite:Yes WebRole:No
Deploy code with GIT, FTP- WebSite:Yes WebRole:No
Near-instant deployment-WebSite:Yes WebRole:No
Integrated MySQL-as-a-service support-WebSite:Yes WebRole:Yes
Multiple deployment environments (production and staging)-WebSite:No WebRole:Yes
Network isolation-WebSite:No WebRole:Yes
Remote desktop access to servers-WebSite:No WebRole:Yes
Ability to run programs with elevated permissions-WebSite:No WebRole:Yes
Ability to define/execute start-up tasks-WebSite:No WebRole:Yes
Ability to use unsupported frameworks or libraries-WebSite:No WebRole:Yes
Support for Windows Azure Connect/ Windows Azure Network-WebSite:No WebRole:Yes
To get a more in detail, visit this link: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/silverlining/archive/2012/06/27/windows-azure-websites-web-roles-and-vms-when-to-use-which.aspx
I have a SharePoint web application that has some custom web parts that consume an asmx web service. This service talks to an Oracle 10g database. Currently, the service is hosted on the application server in its separate web site (and port). I think I should host it on the front end servers under the _vti_bin folder to automatically achieve high availability and load balancing of the service calls. Would you recommend this "enhancement"?
Please notice that the asmx service is configured to run in a 32 bit app pool since oracle client, which it uses, is 32 bit software. I think then I can’t just have it under _vti_bin, I may need to have it in its own virtual directory under the SharePoint application’s IIS web site and configure that VD to run in a separate 32 bit app pool. Will that work out? Will I still achieve the HA and LB benefits knowing that Windows NLB is used?
Another related question; should the service be hosted on the WFE in the first place? It hits an external database which I could think of as a middle tier service that can be kept on the application server(s); one more server to be added soon
When you create a new website on IIS, you get to choose between an "Application" and a "Virtual Directory". What is the difference between those two options?
A virtual directory is just a pointer to where web pages are stored.
An Application reserves memory in IIS for your web pages. If you are attempting to run ASP pages and plan to make use of session variables and the such then you must use an application.
An Application can make use of a virtual directory or it may just exist within the default web site directory (inetpub/wwwroot/)
There are a few differences, here are the biggest:
In IIS 6 and up, you can assign an application a certain "protection" level. (e.g. protection levels, application pools, etc). You can't do this with Virtual Directories
If you are working with ASP.NET, the search for the master "Web.config" file for your application stops at your application level. For a working directory it will actually check your parent hierarchy for settings as well.
These are the two biggest differences in my opinion, although there are other small ones as well.
From the point of view of a web developer:
A virtual directory is the IIS 5 (Windows 2000 and earlier) container for HTML content. A virtual directory can also be configured to allow the interpretation of Active Server Pages (ASP) scripts and/or the execution of Common Gateway Interface (CGI) applications. A virtual directory CANNOT host an ASP.Net web application.
The "application" container type was introduced with IIS 6 (Windows XP / Windows Server 2003 and later). It allows for hosting of ASP.Net web applications.