Is Lightspeed Still Faster Than Apache? (12)
I remember hearing awhile ago that people were switching to Lightspeed because they claim page load was faster than with Apache. Does this still hold true?
Should we switch to Lightspeed instead and what exactly are the gains?
Apache is non-ideal in many respects without decent tweaking. As a drop-in replacement LiteSpeed blows it out of the water but of course costs $$.
Real world speed differences are going to depend on what you require from your webserver and how appropriately it is configured... for certain situations Apache + ModPHP might be similarly fast to LiteSpeed.
I prefer Nginx, mainly because I have invested time in learning how to compile it and play with the configuration. It's configuration is very cogent and easy to work with and a hell of a lot more concise vs everything that comes with Apache.
There are of course some downsides in terms of available modules and some dynamic capabilities but this is why a lot of people opt for Apache with a Varnish or Nginx frontend to serve static content.
TL;DR - If you take a regular install of Apache and replace it with LiteSpeed you will certainly see improvements in virtually every area.
Yes Litespeed is extremely fast compared to apache. The architecture of apache is rather poor for performance but great for flexibility and features. It supports a lot of fancy module stuff that LS doesn't but thats mostly for java applications and such.
Nginx/php-fpm is slower than LS, when we first started we offered it as a solution but quickly found its performance was greatly limited to php-fpm which is rather difficult to manage when it comes to scaling. LSPHP is really fast and ideal for lots of small request (trackers).
If your trying to serve a lot of static content you should be utilizing a CDN. Varnish is useless for anything dynamic because its going to request a new copy every request.
Apache is memory HOG but it have its own advantages. You can use anything like LiteSpeed or Ningx or Apache. It doesn't really matter. Server will not be bottleneck in most cases. It's like asking for Lamborghini vs Ferrari.
Do you want to have an amazing sound or drop panties... lol.
i see you Tyler really love LS... how about the compatibility with every days products like wordpress and other cms
and the overall setup and configuration / customization
as i know the free version is a pain in the ass
Litespeed free is a different engine. The paid pro version we use is flawless, we see an issue maybe once per year?
I agree @ php-fpm being the more annoying component in the nginx setup.
Tyler, how easy is LiteSpeed to configure directly i.e. not via cPanel? Also, for someone comfortable with direct tweaking and not in need of e.g. mod_security, is OpenLiteSpeed a worthwhile server to test? I see it has some limitations cf. enterprise but the difference in real world performance is not so clear.
All GUI driven, you just create the virtual hosts and map directorys. Setup the handler for php.
Originally Posted by zeno
But i never faced any sever bottleneck even with apache. I like nignx for its simple configuration. Configuring php-fpm is bit wacky.
Here is one interesting project to make it as easy as 1,2,3 : http://centminmod.com/
I hope it helps.
Just a heads up, litespeed is good but nginx configured properly can handle the same volume or even more.
Also there is a plugin called cpNginx that allows to use WHM / CPanel with nginx.
Originally Posted by bbrock32
http://blog.litespeedtech.com/2013/1...omment-page-1/
This isn't a paid product because hype, it really is fast. :-)
Home > General > Affiliate Marketing Forum