As far as I know that is not accurate. Perhaps you misunderstood his previous statement?

Think again. :) Realistically, George and crew take all feedback seriously; they're very diligent about keeping their customers happy.

I'm not sure you completely understand the benefits of using the single core license on a multi-core server. The only thing that's running on a single core is the web server itself, and this doesn't include PHP processes or any other external app. It's an excellent way to save some money, and we have real world results. :)

owned licenses are expensive.. Nowadays most servers are dual core.. so 800$ just for a web server is too high.. with the same money you can buy a whole server..

consider how many things a company has to pay.. Hardware server.. network connection.. rack space.. support/billing system.. web control panel.. AND web server.. its too many things and too much money for the 80% of the webhosting/sharedhosting market..

However you get what you pay for.. We know that litespeed is a fantastic web server..

As I said, you don't need to have a dual core license on dual core server. If you're hosting mostly dynamic applications, you probably won't see a benefit in purchasing a dual core license.

A serious business has many expenses in many areas. What you've indicated is the scenario of a company that's colocating (i.e. not simply renting a server), in which case they should be prepared for high investment.

Too bad it doesn't support Windows.

Maybe IIS is good enough!?

ps: trying them on test server and i see good improvement already.
But it does not seem to completely competible with Plesk control panel

I too think the price is a bit high for me...

I don't think so. After using it, it just give me the feeling of "meh".

no I dont represent litespeed but I guess it seems that way sometimes because Im always bragging on it.
The reason it was so amazing to me is because the type of hosting I do. Before on massive http floods I would have to sit in the server banning ranges and restarting apache, setting connection limits way down for csf, etc.
Then I tried litespeed and It cut my workload in half or more. Rarely I ever have to sit and babysit it. Also Im able to host more sites on one server and the load stay relatively low.
http://hostsentry.net/profile/secureservertech_com
cp and cp2 are core2duo 2gb ram, You can see all teh specs there. Those servers are for high risk sites. And most of the high risk sites I host are alexa ranked 100k and up, most 50k and up so they get pretty good traffic. I couldnt be able to do this with apache. It would take 2 apache servers to do it and you would still have a hard time when attacks came.

So Ive basically saved money on hardware, a lot. So the monthly price is justifiable. Also too, I usually run single core in a dual core. And I have a 4 core now I run a dual core in, its soon to be 8 core. As far as needing like the license for the respective cores you can get by for sure. Unless you have some huge download server or serving up lots of static files you can do it.

Php running through litespeed will use all cores anyway. If you are running mostly php/mysql sites you can definitely get by with license for lower amount of cores.

I do brag on litespeed a lot and reccomend it to everyone I can but as far as being involved in sales anyway, Im not. And in a way now I do hope most hosts do not choose to run litespeed or think its too expensive, that is just less competition to worry about.

Most clients Ive got are amazed by the speed and low resource usage. It would really take a crappy script to make litespeed run heavy. I have no resource restrictions on my clients, the only way I would ever try to get a client on a vps or dedicated would be if mysql usage was real high or they had some crappy script that was using too many resources.
I am a lot smaller host than many of you and I currently have 4 licensed servers, 2 vps and about 4 licenses for management clients. Most of which are single core. And as far as it being a high overhead its not. I dont even think of it as something I may not be able to keep. Im more annoyed by cpanel license bills then litespeed lol.

I still will say like Ive always said. Get one of your busiest servers, install litespeed and watch the difference. You dont have to have downtime to do this and its not a risky thing to do. All you do is install litespeed, make it read apache config file. Kill apache and then start litespeed.

And if you dont like it for some reason kill litespeed and restart apache. There would be hardly any noticeable downtime. Maybe 10 seconds while apache is starting back or something but its easily done. Only thing you will really have to do is compile a custom php if you want php5. But I do it everytime despite the version im running or what the client is running because its easier for addon stuff to have your own php.

Its real easy to do and wont be that much trouble at all to try it out. Then you will see why people like me cant shut up about it

Dumb question, do you need a control panel for litespeed to work?

Nope, it's not required. :)

Best,

I would like to note that it's not that hard to find a webserver faster than Apache. I've had the same "wow" feeling when I started using lighttpd at 500mbps on a single box while Apache choked on 50mbps. Now I realize that Apache is just crap in terms of performance.

Doing a DoS against Apache is trivial: just perform a bunch of high-latency requests. A mere 100-200 bots should suffice. Perhaps you've even DoS-ed your box accidentally already.

So, saying "product X is amaaaazing because it's faster than Apache" really doesn't mean anything.

Do you Layer0, represent LiteSpeed or have an agreement with them to help them get their 'message' out on the boards? Because if my memory serves me well, you did say that on some board or blog.

It is important for people to know who among the thread helpers is working, formally or informally, for LiteSpeed.

I am a customer, and absolutely nothing else. If you notice, relatively speaking I didn't even participate very much in this thread. I have never made such a statement, and I'd appreciate if you didn't spew such misinformation.

Alot of it depends on how your server is optimized.

I've been able to serve a full 100Mbps off of a 2.4ghz celeron server(static content).

Although if it's marketed to be a drop-in replacement for Apache, such a statement would have its merits :)