For us at least, we don't want more servers. There are a lot more "costs" with more servers. The biggest one being more management headaches. So while this product is expensive, it avoids a lot of other costs.
Frank
Printable View
One other thing to consider with supposed high costs is how much time is saved using Litespeed. Personally, I save muchos muchos time with easy configuration and lack of slowdown and downtime.
How much do you charge an hour? Well, my time is not cheap and nor is downtime. Throwing hardware at a problem is not a solution (IMHO), it is averting the problem for a while.
All I can say is try it before casting it aside - give a real go and you may be surprised. I know I was and every server and VPS I have now uses Litespeed.
Guys I would almost bet money that a single dual core server running litespeed would smoke and handle about 2 times or more traffic then a dual dual core setup running apache.
That would be an interesting test there, Ive seen apache fork bomb on them quad core servers with much less then Ive seen litespeed handle on my core2duo
But to the ones who havent tried it you should, you will trip, trust me
How hard was the install? I saw you discussing the .htaccess rules... how many rules did actually have to change. A lot of our sites use .htaccess.... do most rules work?
I just had to change some redirect rules, its real easy to install. Everything else on htaccess it reads fine
Personally I've not had to change any .htaccess rules when transferring sites from apache hosting.
What I have had to do is adjust some slightly if I used the rewrite config tab located in the Litespeed Admin Gui.
In case that sounds confusing, LS can use existing .htaccess rules and is generally accepting of existing mod_rewrite rules (but as mentioned, you may have to do some tweaking) or you can create a new set within the gui (which is parsed quicker than using an existing .htaccess rule set).
The rewrite engine is based on mod_rewrite and is designed to be as compatible as possible.
So you all think the investment is worth it? I might try it out on one of my box's
That completely depends on your setup. If you are serving sets of 50 sites off $39 celeron boxes, then it might not fit well in your budget for example.
The only way to find out if it would be worth it, would be to run tests with a trial to see how much more performance you can expect. Then calculate how much the license would be per month (license fee / server lifetime) and see if the ratio is positive.
If the price increases with a higher percentage than the performance increase, then no, it wont be worth it. If the performance increase is higher than the price increase..go for it ;)
I wish I had heard about it earlier because I have some really powerful servers that the apache load was just destroying. Some of it was due to the mySQL but now I have four servers to handle the load of the original one. I think it probably would have been cheaper haha.
We have used litespeed on a few servers and have had excellent results with it as well.
We're also testing LightSpeed Enterprise on our test rack. The speed difference is amazing. Regular sites are served much faster, the load is down, and SSL requests are processed more efficiently.
One of the reasons why I have avoided Cpanel is the absence of Apache 2.2, and coupled with a lot of custom compilations I have avoided Cpanel.
Does it integrate well with Apache 2 based installations, as someone obsessed with custom setups it really matters to me.
If it will integrate well with Cpanel that will be great for me.
- voipfc
voipfc:
There is a wiki page at Litespeed regarding cpanel integration: http://www.litespeedtech.com/support...:apache:cpanel
This may answer some of your questions. There are also a few posts in the forum but most issues were resolved very quickly.
In summary - yes Litespeed supports cpanel but there may be some extra configuration to do.