Correct - we've noticed this ourselves on a dev server. But, we do not run standard on any production systems.

I just hope they hurry and get the monthly payments available before my lisences runs out in about 14 days. That would suck to have to go back to apache.

I'm sure you could work out something with them in such a case. Personally, I simply pay for our licenses yearly.

Just updating to let everyone know they have the monthly lisences available. I know some was discouraged from that lump sum, I was too. So now thanks to a some people bugging the crap out of litespeed sales (i.e: me) they now have the monthly plans.
http://store.litespeedtech.com/order/products.php

True... but two dual cores running apache will still crap out on the most trivial GET flood. One litespeed box would likely keep ticking without a hitch. That's what you're paying for, nub.

yeah thats a fact. if you see in my thread above I said I would even bet money that one dual core running litespeed would smoke and handle 10 times more traffic and 100 times more dos then a quad core running apache.

that would be an interesting test but Im 100% positive litespeed would not just win but totaly destroy apache

If they dropped the price it would probably sell like crazy. $800 is a little steep for the shared hosting market. What's better, selling a thousand copies @ $800 or 100,000 copies @ $100? (hint hint, wink wink).

Does look a bit on the pricier side. But worth testing. I can see some selected use for it.

It is pricey, but it is amazing, and well worth it.
Its just not 100% seamless with cPanel yet, very close, but still allot of things todo to get it working right. But when working right it works amazing and truly runs 100x better than apache.

no matter what, litespeed is a payware and it is good if you in need of technical support. however, nginx + fastcgi or proxy-to-apache and lighttpd 1.5.0-aio + fastcgi or proxy-to-apache is also great solution.

by the way.. I'm using Litespeed Enterprise for my website ( k a s k u s . u s ) and we're on Alexa.com 1500 position :)

and since then, i save lots of money and bring more revenue.
i suggest you guys use Litespeed and it's worth every pennies.

If they are only target enterprise market then i think they miss a bigger market.

Having monthly licenses available is a great move, but your prices are still too big for small hosting companies such as myself and many others. You should consider lowering the price to enter.

I know for a fact that you have amazing volume discounts. But, please remember that there are many people who only have one server.

The per-Core/CPU prices really need to be lowered aswell. As the market starts shifting towards quad-core CPUs, I think that the prices should be lowered across the board.

Litespeed could become _the_ webserver for great hosts. Or, it could simply remain a product used by a few companies here and there. It's your choice.

I hope when you say "you" you're not referring to SecureServerTech, as he doesn't represent LiteSpeed. :)

Also, if you weren't aware already, you don't need to purchase a quad core license for a quad core server. You can purchase a single core license and let the web server itself use a single core, but have the external applications (e.g. PHP) take advantage of all cores (and the same goes for all of your other services, such as MySQL).

I believe that he represents Litespeed's sales department. If there would be a man that could influence George it would probably be him.

Yes, I am fully aware of the fact that I could run a single-core license on even a server with 8 cores. But that doesn't mean that I'll get great performance out of it. What I'm trying to say is that a dual-core server has more performance per core than a quad-core. A lot of software is moving towards a threaded environment and Litespeed's licensing is counter-intuitive on this fact.

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 :)

I finally bit the bullet and decided to try litespeed, was hesistant not knowing how well it works with cPanel. The web server has been running on my server for over one week and let me tell you, it totally rocks! A million times better than Apache, it can't hold a handle next to LiteSpeed. :agree:

Websites load noticeably faster, CPU and memory usage dropped, no more slowdowns whatsoever, it's truly one amazing web server. ;) I can now sleep easier knowing it can handle large spikes in traffic and mitigate attacks with its anti-ddos settings. Speaking of that, litespeed handled one just few days ago easily, an IP opening hundreds of connections per second..it didn't slow down the server at all, loads were under 2 and memory usage under 10MB All this didn't impact the performance one bit, I just accidentally discovered it while checking the netstat command. :) Apache wouldn't choked under those conditions. LS is truly a robust and high scability server.

Their support is great too, George offers speedy replies and fixes bugs in 1-2 days. They even implement suggestions based on feedback from the users. I highly recommend you guys to try it, they offer a free trial so you have nothing to lose. Replacing and reverting back to Apache is very simple with almost no downtime. Version 4.0 will be out soon. :agree:

I agree. We've been using LiteSpeed ourselves for a couple weeks and it has been working great. It is definitely faster and gives us less to worry about. It seems it'll end up being worth the cost simply in saved support time trying to resolve various load issues/spikes with Apache, etc., etc. Not to mention the increased reliability, with truly zero downtime restarts, DDoS protection built-in, and the higher speed/efficiency.

I meant to say Apache would have choked. :stickout:

The zero downtime graceful restarts are great, I must've restarted it over 100x by now, still in the process of tweaking. :D Why don't more mainstream web hosts use it?

I heard that wordpress is using nginx now. Wonder if they are testing it or not. :eek:

Nginx just not require any "testing". It just work:) Let see http://yandex.ru (it is search engine for Russia) or any other big site in Russia - all based on nginx. Many host giant here also used nginx on servers (but our hosts usually use own control panel and not use 3rd party developed software). One of them is Masterhost.ru which manage about 30 k clients or more and all their servers run with Nginx as frontend)
From the other side i must say that it is bit a hard for good setup and understanding. It's understandable because nginx coded by admin for admins and actually not for newbies :) But, i sure you may pay about 100-200 USD for setting nginx up for one heavily loaded site and you will get it to work without any problem and forever without any other fees. Pay little more (500-800 USD) and get it to work with Cpanel/Directadmin and with right and effective antiDDOS settings and modification and you will safe from lot of stupid attackers.
For me LiteSpeed over nginx/lighthttpd with it's web based interface and documentation and support only.

WHT is running on LiteSpeed now. :D

i want to switch my shared hosting to litespeed but my management guys (PSM) say they will not support me if i install litespeed :( ,my datacenter gigenet will install only litespeed for me but they will also not support future :( what you guys say ? should i switch to litespeed ? i host mostly vb sites, wp blogs, proxy sites & image hosting sites will this benifit me ? or get me in trouble :(

I dont understand why PSM wouldn't support it. It basically uses the same syntax as all versions of Apache including mod_security, mod_rewrite, cache, etc. It's very easy to manage, low resource usage, etc. Litespeed is a server management company's dream come true only if they have a lil experience with it and are familiar with it. I would much rather manage someone;s server running litespeed then I would apache any day of the week. Maybe PSM will come around sometime. but I will tell you using litespeed, installing it, configuring it, etc is not hard at all and there is a lot of info on the litespeed wiki and forums. PLus you can always switch back to apache with no problems if you choose you don't like it. So If I was you Id give it a try, if you still need someone to manage it, then look around for a different management company who supports litespeed. It's kind of weird a management company not supporting litespeed. I would understand if there had been like massive problems with the conversion and control panel integration but that is the furthest form the truth. Litespeed integrates very well into server and control panel. There have been hardly any issues at all. And the ones that have arose have been minor.

It's not open source; there is no way to see if the problem is to do with the program or the configuration meaning countless hours could be spent looking at something that can't be fixed.

The developer is usually quick in replying and fixing bugs. He will even login to your server to help you free of charge. :agree:

LightSpeed is Amazing.
i am using paid version, $44 per month.

We use LiteSpeed almost on all our Shared Hosting servers, and servers are really more stable then with Apache. I cannot remember when we had problems with some overload or downtime. :agree:

LiteSpeed is definitely an exceptional product.

-mike

I know this is an old thread and I may get in trouble for bumping it but I wanted to update since I have been using it since I made this thread which is over 2 years ago.

We still use litespeed on all of our servers and still swear by it. There has been a few problems here and there with bugs and security issues but it all gets fixed real fast. I know George personally and he listens to all of my reports and concerns no matter how paranoid or minor they are. He is a great guy and listens to his customers.

I give litespeed credit for making my business what it is today. I simply could not have done it with apache or any other web server. When I first made this post I was pretty much struggling trying to do ddos protected hosting with apache, with litespeed it made it much easier. Litespeed does not do it all for you, there is still lots of server and network level things needed but overall it is a very essential part of our services. I would also like to add that our network Staminus.net has also been an essential part of our growth. Without either one we probably would have been another failed hosting company.

I see lots of other hosts have converted to litespeed and lots of users like it. This makes for more competiton but Im glad to see it take off the way it did. I would like to think that I helped Litespeed grow to what it is today from my reviews, reccomendations and feedback.

And that is it, please dont kill me mods for bumping this :( I seen it on a google search and figured I would give it a 2 year update :)

I hope you don't get in trouble, I think it's great that you gave us an update, thanks for your 2-year Litespeed review! Considering this and other reports, it looks like Litespeed is an excellent choice for many web servers.

I Find it funny how this thread is all about how litespeed is the best http server and provides better up-time... Yet I try and go to their website: http://www.litespeedtech.com/ and it times out :rolleyes:

Lol, I cant say that I've used litespeed, I will give it a try when their site gets back up. :-\

Their online store is still online & working fine.
http://store.litespeedtech.com/

Yea, their whole sites back up again. Prob just a reboot or something :-/ lol

Tried lsws now, to maybe give better performce than apache2 does.
I linked to up to the apache2 config, and it did work out of the box for a little while.
But when traffic started to get higher, the trouble started for me.
Its hopefully some config thats needed, but i need to test it more before putting it out in production, good its easy to swap back :)

Hey Now!

I have to give my 0.02! LiteSpeed Rocks! We use it on our shared servers and recommend it to all vps and dedicated clients as well.

We have been using it sooo much that we finally partnered with them and they are great to work with.

I've decided to give Litespeed a go on my dedicated server. It should work well with my vBulletin forums.

WHT this forum uses Litespeed, doesn't it?

used to, but not anymore i believe

It looks like apache right now (from HTTP header response).

WHT used Litespeed for a while, but then switched back to Apache.

We have server with WHM. So, cPanel team maybe is working on it. Seem good option to implement in servers.

Daniel

LiteSpeed + LSAPI vs. Apache + Passenger vs. Nginx + Passenger

Many asked for updated benchmarks and here it is! :D

http://blog.litespeedtech.com/2009/1...enger/#more-97

Benchmark Comparison on Serving Small Static Files: LiteSpeed vs Apache vs Nginx

http://blog.litespeedtech.com/2009/1...ache-vs-nginx/

Thanks a lot for this review, I'm finding out a lot about litespeed on here and I think I might make the switch if it will prove to be a legitimate performance advantage over Apache.

It seems like its a lot better for serving static files overall.

HI,

All our servers use LiteSpeed and we absolutely love it.:)