Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 45
  1. #1

    Why don't all shared web hosts use litepspeed?

    Why don't all shared web hosts use litepspeed? Any reason?
    GlumboUploads - File hosting without wait-times or CAPTCHAs
    RichPeopleThings - Blog about rich people and luxury items

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Ferenginar
    Posts
    4,156
    I'm sure that this has something to do with it

    https://store.litespeedtech.com/store/cart.php
    What's your budget?

    Seriously, what's your budget?

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by RossMAN View Post
    I'm sure that this has something to do with it

    https://store.litespeedtech.com/store/cart.php
    Isn't that almost nothing for web hosting companies?
    GlumboUploads - File hosting without wait-times or CAPTCHAs
    RichPeopleThings - Blog about rich people and luxury items

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,446
    It's all preference. Most of us prefer to choose to stay out of another HyperVM situation with closed-source. Additionally, Apache 2.2 (if configured correctly) is just as good or better than Apache.
    FiberPeer.Com | | REAL DDoS Protection | Cloud Hosting | VPS | Dedicated Servers | High Bandwidth Hosting | 1Gbps-10Gbps Unmetered
    FiberPeer DDoS Mitigation | ethProxy Upgraded! | 14-Years Experience | Emergency 24/7 Support
    Visit us @ www.fiberpeer.com

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    7,200
    Quote Originally Posted by DakNet View Post
    Isn't that almost nothing for web hosting companies?
    For small companies, the extra licensing costs may not seem worth it. For bigger companies, shifting away from Apache would be quite a big change even though LiteSpeed is a drop-in replacement.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by DakNet View Post
    Why don't all shared web hosts use litepspeed? Any reason?

    I guess for the same reason they use Joomla for their website rather then a commercial product? "because open source matters"?

    In all seriousness though - Apache v2.x is awesome and be configured pretty much however you like. Apache is rarely the limiting factor in shared hosting, so, changing to litespeed doesnt make much sense.. as Orien also pointed out, a large fleet is all about standardization. You cannot just plop a new webserver onto 100s of servers - it would cause all sorts of issues. Is litespeed better? in some aspects yes - it is, in others, no it isnt... I do not see a reason for litespeed to be a defacto standard.. though, I do see a niche market for it, thats for sure..

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    16,087
    Quote Originally Posted by DakNet View Post
    Isn't that almost nothing for web hosting companies?
    It depends on the company.

    Quote Originally Posted by ServerOrigin View Post
    It's all preference. Most of us prefer to choose to stay out of another HyperVM situation with closed-source. Additionally, Apache 2.2 (if configured correctly) is just as good or better than Apache.
    Apache 2.2 can perform just as well as LiteSpeed but in my experiences it requires 2x the ram to do so (we've run Apache for years and LiteSpeed for long enough to identify the difference).

    I wrote a small post about it on my personal non-commercial blog: http://www.mikedvb.com/2009/07/22/li...-2-in-my-eyes/
    Michael Denney - MDDHosting LLC
    New shared plans for 2016! Check them out!
    Highly Available Shared, Premium, Reseller, and VPS
    http://www.mddhosting.com/

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,446
    Quote Originally Posted by ServerOrigin View Post
    It's all preference. Most of us prefer to choose to stay out of another HyperVM situation with closed-source. Additionally, Apache 2.2 (if configured correctly) is just as good or better than Apache.
    Just a correction... I meant "Apache 2.2 (if configured correctly) is just as good or better than Litespeed."

    Our real world benchmarks prove Apache 2.2 is on par and in cases faster than Litespeed. Not to mention the flexibility we have with Apache and the limitless modules available. It's a safer bet for shared providers. Support is always here, whereas, Litespeed goes out of business and now all of your customers are completely unsupported. You can't fix bugs, you can't see the code, and you can't recognize the vulnerabilities. The risks far outweigh the benefits.

    May never happen but in this business there is always that possibility.
    FiberPeer.Com | | REAL DDoS Protection | Cloud Hosting | VPS | Dedicated Servers | High Bandwidth Hosting | 1Gbps-10Gbps Unmetered
    FiberPeer DDoS Mitigation | ethProxy Upgraded! | 14-Years Experience | Emergency 24/7 Support
    Visit us @ www.fiberpeer.com

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Seminole, OK
    Posts
    1,575
    Quote Originally Posted by ServerOrigin View Post
    Just a correction... I meant "Apache 2.2 (if configured correctly) is just as good or better than Litespeed."

    Our real world benchmarks prove Apache 2.2 is on par and in cases faster than Litespeed. Not to mention the flexibility we have with Apache and the limitless modules available. It's a safer bet for shared providers. Support is always here, whereas, Litespeed goes out of business and now all of your customers are completely unsupported. You can't fix bugs, you can't see the code, and you can't recognize the vulnerabilities. The risks far outweigh the benefits.

    May never happen but in this business there is always that possibility.
    In my opinion Apache 2.2 is the best web server. It is stable and doesn't use much resources and seems to respond faster than IIS
    Inode Hosting - Reliable Web Hosting for the right price.
    Shared & Reseller hosting featuring the industry leading cpanel
    99.9% Uptime Guarantee ,30 Day Money Back Guarantee ,24/7 Support
    Established since 2011

  10. #10
    I suppose the main reason is demand. If there is demand for the services I'm sure that will be offered by every second host...

  11. #11
    As Apache is easy to use and there are heaps of information out for it, and its widely used and so bugs are quicker to found and solved quicker. As most of the webhosts install Cpanel, Plesk and directadmin which mostly rely on the Apache.
    Support Facility | 24/7 web hosting technical support services
    Technical support | Server management | Data migration

    Technical Articles

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    13
    There are hundreds of webservers available. Why would we use LiteSpeed?
    The fact that probably every sysadmin has worked with Apache gives it a big advantage.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    4,612
    Apache is a proven web server. I haven't seen any cases where using anything else really makes that much of a difference. We've had customers pushing 500+ small files per second on Apache with a low load, so why switch?
    Scott Burns, President
    BQ Internet Corporation
    Remote Rsync and FTP backup solutions
    *** http://www.bqbackup.com/ ***

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    SFO,MIA,ATL,AMS
    Posts
    535
    the cost has to be absorbed somewhere, clients sure dont want to pay for it.
    ServerWholesale.com Toll Free: 1-844-Servers
    Dedicated Servers at wholesale prices • Vpn, Vps, Cdn and Cloud Friendly.
    Only SuperMicro and Dell Intel XEON Powered Servers.
    Unmetered Dedicated Premium Bandwidth Nlayer / GTT

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Maine, US
    Posts
    521
    Quote Originally Posted by cartika-andrew View Post
    I guess for the same reason they use Joomla for their website rather then a commercial product? "because open source matters"?

    In all seriousness though - Apache v2.x is awesome and be configured pretty much however you like. Apache is rarely the limiting factor in shared hosting, so, changing to litespeed doesnt make much sense.. as Orien also pointed out, a large fleet is all about standardization. You cannot just plop a new webserver onto 100s of servers - it would cause all sorts of issues. Is litespeed better? in some aspects yes - it is, in others, no it isnt... I do not see a reason for litespeed to be a defacto standard.. though, I do see a niche market for it, thats for sure..
    I have to agree with everything said here. However we have upgraded our server to apache 2.x and it is nice yet it create a world of headaches for my self and my techs. Working well into the night to fix many messed up sites, but I guess thats what you have to expect when upgrading to a major version improvement.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    16,087
    Any host running Apache is going to fight for Apache where as any host running LiteSpeed is going to fight for LiteSpeed - that's like asking Host A if you should sign up with Host B and vice versa... The host wouldn't be running it if they didn't believe it could perform and do what they want it to do

    In the end, this probably isn't the best place to ask this kind of question for an unbiased and objective response
    Michael Denney - MDDHosting LLC
    New shared plans for 2016! Check them out!
    Highly Available Shared, Premium, Reseller, and VPS
    http://www.mddhosting.com/

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Seminole, OK
    Posts
    1,575
    Considering Apache is a Open source web server it has the worlds support behind it. When 1 bugs pops up and another person solves it. Then apache patches it and its all done. With Paid webservers you get a bug and their developers have to solve it and patch it.

    Plus apache makes it cheaper for their clients
    Inode Hosting - Reliable Web Hosting for the right price.
    Shared & Reseller hosting featuring the industry leading cpanel
    99.9% Uptime Guarantee ,30 Day Money Back Guarantee ,24/7 Support
    Established since 2011

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    16,087
    Quote Originally Posted by jcarney1987 View Post
    Considering Apache is a Open source web server it has the worlds support behind it. When 1 bugs pops up and another person solves it. Then apache patches it and its all done. With Paid webservers you get a bug and their developers have to solve it and patch it.
    Which in my experiences with LiteSpeed usually only takes a few minutes to an hour or two from the time that you report a bug until it's resolved and pushed into the latest build - I don't know that I've seen an update pushed out that fast with Apache so your argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense

    Of course I am seeing things from the "other side of the fence" but I speak having run Apache 1.3, 2.0. and 2.2 for years prior to running LiteSpeed so I do have knowledge of both systems
    Michael Denney - MDDHosting LLC
    New shared plans for 2016! Check them out!
    Highly Available Shared, Premium, Reseller, and VPS
    http://www.mddhosting.com/

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Seminole, OK
    Posts
    1,575

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeDVB View Post
    Which in my experiences with LiteSpeed usually only takes a few minutes to an hour or two from the time that you report a bug until it's resolved and pushed into the latest build - I don't know that I've seen an update pushed out that fast with Apache so your argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense

    Of course I am seeing things from the "other side of the fence" but I speak having run Apache 1.3, 2.0. and 2.2 for years prior to running LiteSpeed so I do have knowledge of both systems

    Well I am not saying lightspeed is slow. If they have fast service then perhaps they get to work and get the patch out. But I've never used lightspeed. I personally just hate trying to get support from paid services just because they can make you wait forever. But opensource you can ask the world for support and it is more easily answered. But as I said before I have never used lightspeed and probably never will. So who knows the true capability.
    Inode Hosting - Reliable Web Hosting for the right price.
    Shared & Reseller hosting featuring the industry leading cpanel
    99.9% Uptime Guarantee ,30 Day Money Back Guarantee ,24/7 Support
    Established since 2011

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    EU - east side
    Posts
    21,913
    In the end, this probably isn't the best place to ask this kind of question for an unbiased and objective response
    Probably not the perfect place indeed, but do you know some that would be? I can't imagine any. Threads like this raise awareness, and that's definitely something gained.

    However we have upgraded our server to apache 2.x and it is nice yet it create a world of headaches for my self and my techs. Working well into the night to fix many messed up sites, but I guess thats what you have to expect when upgrading to a major version improvement.
    You're touching a serious issue there. Apache has a huge market share, yet hosts still took their time to upgrade to Apache 2. We can only imagine the significantly higher natural resistance to change to something like Litespeed.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    16,087
    Quote Originally Posted by jcarney1987 View Post
    Well I am not saying lightspeed is slow. If they have fast service then perhaps they get to work and get the patch out. But I've never used lightspeed. I personally just hate trying to get support from paid services just because they can make you wait forever. But opensource you can ask the world for support and it is more easily answered. But as I said before I have never used lightspeed and probably never will.
    It certainly has it's place - as an example a server at another provider that I do some work for was running 200~300 loads (around 550 proxy accounts on the server) with Apache and FastCGI and as soon as it was switched to LiteSpeed the load dropped to 2~3 steady - RAM usage was cut in half and performance was greatly increased. I am very good at optimizing Apache and I have worked with it for years however the Proxy environment and the demands it put on Apache were too much for Apache to handle even heavily optimized on a *very strong* dual quad core node with HT raid10 and 24gb of ram A switch to LiteSpeed turned that all around and I could post up a video showing the huge differences but I'd rather Apache hosts stay on Apache which gives us LiteSpeed hosts more of an "Edge" and a smaller/tighter market

    Edit: That server with 550 accounts was consolidated down from 4 such similar servers to save costs and then was switched to LiteSpeed to allow the 1 server to handle the work that previously required 4 servers... For the price of around $32/month the provider cut out over $1500 worth of additional leased servers I did try to optimize Apache before switching to LSWS however the requests/second and the amount of connections was simply too high for Apache to handle reliably

    Quote Originally Posted by jcarney1987 View Post
    So who knows the true capability.
    I do, I've been running LiteSpeed for some time and as stated in my response to the first section of your post I quoted, I've seen it work wonders. It's not a miracle piece of software that will solve every problem and I won't say that it does everything better than Apache but I have used their support enough to know that when a bug or issue is reported it's fixed quickly and that it can and does handle as much as Apache 2.2 (heavily optimized) or more using 1/2 as much ram or less.
    Last edited by MikeDVB; 10-06-2009 at 01:46 PM.
    Michael Denney - MDDHosting LLC
    New shared plans for 2016! Check them out!
    Highly Available Shared, Premium, Reseller, and VPS
    http://www.mddhosting.com/

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    5,512
    Quote Originally Posted by ServerOrigin View Post
    Support is always here, whereas, Litespeed goes out of business and now all of your customers are completely unsupported.
    In which case:

    1) Login to Cpanel
    2) Click on the Litespeed module
    3) Click "Switch to Apache"

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,446
    Quote Originally Posted by IRCCo Jeff View Post
    In which case:

    1) Login to Cpanel
    2) Click on the Litespeed module
    3) Click "Switch to Apache"
    Unless you run FreeBSD where that module breaks everything.
    FiberPeer.Com | | REAL DDoS Protection | Cloud Hosting | VPS | Dedicated Servers | High Bandwidth Hosting | 1Gbps-10Gbps Unmetered
    FiberPeer DDoS Mitigation | ethProxy Upgraded! | 14-Years Experience | Emergency 24/7 Support
    Visit us @ www.fiberpeer.com

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    16,087
    Quote Originally Posted by ServerOrigin View Post
    Unless you run FreeBSD where that module breaks everything.
    I've never seen anybody show me how/why the "WHM Plugin" for LSWS breaks FreeBSD... It's a plugin for WHM that simply gives you access to a small LSWS control panel - how on earth would that "Break everything"?
    Michael Denney - MDDHosting LLC
    New shared plans for 2016! Check them out!
    Highly Available Shared, Premium, Reseller, and VPS
    http://www.mddhosting.com/

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,446
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeDVB View Post
    I've never seen anybody show me how/why the "WHM Plugin" for LSWS breaks FreeBSD... It's a plugin for WHM that simply gives you access to a small LSWS control panel - how on earth would that "Break everything"?
    No idea. Only know the last time we used it, we had permission issues, broken configurations, messed up the conf files, and required several hours of repair. It's not the add-on, it's the add-on's installation method.
    FiberPeer.Com | | REAL DDoS Protection | Cloud Hosting | VPS | Dedicated Servers | High Bandwidth Hosting | 1Gbps-10Gbps Unmetered
    FiberPeer DDoS Mitigation | ethProxy Upgraded! | 14-Years Experience | Emergency 24/7 Support
    Visit us @ www.fiberpeer.com

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    55
    Hello,

    I have a question. Is LiteSpeed a modified version of Apache or it's written from zero by LiteSpeed Technologies?

    Please clarify.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    4,033
    Quote Originally Posted by robotwink View Post
    Hello,

    I have a question. Is LiteSpeed a modified version of Apache or it's written from zero by LiteSpeed Technologies?

    Please clarify.
    It will be best for you to direct this question to the developers of LiteSpeed directly.

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeDVB View Post
    Any host running Apache is going to fight for Apache where as any host running LiteSpeed is going to fight for LiteSpeed - that's like asking Host A if you should sign up with Host B and vice versa... The host wouldn't be running it if they didn't believe it could perform and do what they want it to do

    In the end, this probably isn't the best place to ask this kind of question for an unbiased and objective response
    ok, 100% agree with this..

    As I said in my original post.. open source does matter - and both Apache and Litespeed have their benefits.. for anyone to claim that flat out one is better then the other and everyone should use one over the other isnt being objective (and yes, is being biased) - and in my opinion - hasnt considered all the variables..

    As I said previously, litespeed has certain advantages over apache - and specifically in certain scenarios.. but, apache also has its advantages - lets avoid all of this though - to break it down to what really matters - ie dollars.. apache can yield similar results to litespeed in the average, typical, non specialized or niche type of hosting environment - the only difference really is an increase in ram requirements.. and considering ram is cheap, typically not the limiting factor and easily scalable - it makes more sense, in most cases, to stick with the widely supported, open code and cheaper solution - especially when in most practical instances, the performance is the same and the overall costs (even including the higher ram overhead) - are significantly lower...

    litespeed is fantastic - I will admit, we were late to even try it compared to many of the early adopters - but, it will continue to be a niche offering - and nothing wrong with that.. and even die hard apache providers (which we are not for example) - will use it in certain scenarios and for specific reasons (ie where it flat out does a better job for a specific purpose vs apache - ie the proxy example you gave - but, honestly - proxy environments are quite niche to say the least) - having said all of this, there are very few instances where litespeed does a flat out better job then apache with some additional ram - and as such, what is the real purpose of using litespeed in those scenarios other then to cater to a niche market? (and dont get me wrong, as you stated, that on its own could be reason enough) - but, we should be careful with flat out statements of either apache or litespeed being the "best" solution - as this is clearly not the case in both cases...
    Last edited by cartika-andrew; 10-07-2009 at 02:33 AM.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    33
    Fantastic thread! A plethora of useful information. Just what I was looking for. Actually, I was just looking for an instance to use the word plethora ;-)

    Thanks everyone for the info.
    Alan

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by jcarney1987 View Post
    In my opinion Apache 2.2 is the best web server. It is stable and doesn't use much resources and seems to respond faster than IIS
    Apache 2.2 is slower then IIS 7.

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Tech Belt
    Posts
    7,802
    I've had my fair share of both, ran apache for a while then went to litespeed and granted it was pretty awesome, but there were still a few things missing that would make it beat apache. Flength yes that little loader bar on your scripts like PHPMotion. I couldn't get PHPmotion to work with litespeed and not sure how far they've come since 2.something.

    The main things I liked about litespeed though was the reboot that was fast and the stability to keep running and not crap out. Then again, apache can do the same now you just have to be careful when configuring it

    When I went back to apache, I didn't really notice much performance decrease, although then again I hired PSM so if I hired them before a while back I would probably of had better stability like now
    #---.#---###### | Host Mist LLC - Helping People Say Hello World™
    #---.#---#--#--# || Shared, Reseller, Master Reseller, VPS, Dedicated
    ####---#--#--# }| Featuring multiple locations across the US & Germany.
    #---#---#--#--# #| Connecting the world through web hosting.

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    16,087
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt - HostMist View Post
    I've had my fair share of both, ran apache for a while then went to litespeed and granted it was pretty awesome, but there were still a few things missing that would make it beat apache. Flength yes that little loader bar on your scripts like PHPMotion. I couldn't get PHPmotion to work with litespeed and not sure how far they've come since 2.something.
    4.1 has flength but other than that the rest of PHPMotion works just fine - just no progress bar unless you are on 4.1+

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt - HostMist View Post
    The main things I liked about litespeed though was the reboot that was fast and the stability to keep running and not crap out. Then again, apache can do the same now you just have to be careful when configuring it
    I've found LiteSpeed can handle quite a bit more requests/second without crashing out without needing as much ram (around half as much)

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt - HostMist View Post
    When I went back to apache, I didn't really notice much performance decrease, although then again I hired PSM so if I hired them before a while back I would probably of had better stability like now
    It depends on how optimized you were previously, how optimized now, and how much of a load you really are/were putting on Apache

    On *most* shared servers Apache vs LiteSpeed doesn't make much of a difference other than allowing the host to place more accounts on the server - some claim to see faster loading of pages and php and some don't - I don't know ... as long as it works and it's not slow personally I'd be happy
    Michael Denney - MDDHosting LLC
    New shared plans for 2016! Check them out!
    Highly Available Shared, Premium, Reseller, and VPS
    http://www.mddhosting.com/

  33. #33

    Memory usage

    Very interesting thread!

    I am having difficulty with my shared hosting account, where it is running on Litespeed, and constantly getting PHP out of memory errors. I am not having a lot of fun getting my host to fix it, but wanted to pass this by you all:

    What would be the cause of the problem if a Litespeed webserver used TWICE as much RAM for a PHP process as an apache server?

    For instance, I am able to test the actual memory usage using PHP by running a small script that creates 1000 arrays, and then outputs the memory used.
    Results:

    On my host we are getting 17132664, or roughly 16mb, just to load those arrays.

    On another Host the script yields :8976316, or roughly 8mb. (LAMP)

    On My DEV laptop, running ubuntu desktop, and LAMP, it yields13377664, or 12.5mb.
    On My DEV laptop, running ubuntu desktop, and APPWEB, it yields 8969512, or 8mb.
    My DEV laptop specs: P4M1.6ghz, 1gb Ram, 64mb memory limit for PHP.
    My Host also has a 64mb memory limit for PHP ("burstable" to 92mb apparently).

    Sorry if this is OFF-Topic, but I checked out Michael's blog about Litespeed, where he states that out-of-the-box LS should use HALF the memory of apache, not TWICE!!

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    16,087
    I wouldn't know about that, I've never experienced that myself. You may try posting on the LiteSpeed forums at http://www.litespeedtech.com/support/forum/ as I am sure they will be interested in testing/diagnosing this and if anybody was able to give you a good answer, it would be them.

    It could be the specific configuration at the particular host.
    Michael Denney - MDDHosting LLC
    New shared plans for 2016! Check them out!
    Highly Available Shared, Premium, Reseller, and VPS
    http://www.mddhosting.com/

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,582
    I doubt it's LiteSpeed causing the PHP usage but a difference in the PHP configuration. Are each of those machines using 64bit? Or is just the host using that and the rest are 32bit? That would explain a difference in memory usage. There are some cases even where for whatever reason the 64bit version is using substantially more memory (probably a bug somewhere).
    Tony B. - Chief Executive Officer
    Hawk Host Inc. Proudly serving websites since 2004
    Quality Shared and VPS Hosting
    PHP 5.3.x & PHP 5.4.x & PHP 5.5.X & PHP 5.6.X & PHP 7.0.X Support!

  36. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    41
    The main reason is cost / value.
    I know my reasoning here is wrong as I'm just taking into account memory and not cpu usage but on a dual core machine a litespeed licence costs would be $499.00 USD per year.
    How much does once off 8+ gigs of ram cost? Nothing like that much.

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    641
    Apache sucks in comparison to Litespeed. Last thing I want to do is pay license fee's that increase as I grow, but sometimes it is worth it.

    Sure there may be better (more light weight) solutions vs Litespeed for serving huge amounts of traffic, but nothing is as drop-in compatible with Apache, which is important for most hosting companies...

  38. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    16,087
    Quote Originally Posted by TonyB View Post
    I doubt it's LiteSpeed causing the PHP usage but a difference in the PHP configuration. Are each of those machines using 64bit? Or is just the host using that and the rest are 32bit? That would explain a difference in memory usage. There are some cases even where for whatever reason the 64bit version is using substantially more memory (probably a bug somewhere).
    I figured you would chime in, I was going to point out a difference in PHP builds/configurations as well but it's just a shot in the dark without knowing more.
    Michael Denney - MDDHosting LLC
    New shared plans for 2016! Check them out!
    Highly Available Shared, Premium, Reseller, and VPS
    http://www.mddhosting.com/

  39. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    134
    Since we moved to LiteSpeed a few months ago I cannot tell you how much this has improved everything from speed to security and management costs that we had to pay for people to optimize Apache or fix DDoS attacks.
    ►► Magmahost ►► Professional & Affordable Shared, Reseller Services.
    »» Performance, Reliability, Stability. Your data is safe with us.
    »» 99.9 Uptime | Extremely Secure | 24/7 Support | LiteSpeed
    ★ Hosting anyone can afford. ★ UK AND USA SERVERS

  40. #40
    Thanks for the replies. My host is finally taking me seriously, and going back to Litespeed for help.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-17-2009, 03:48 PM
  2. Tricks of shared hosts,how to be a shared hoster.
    By Libertes in forum Web Hosting
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-02-2008, 04:46 PM
  3. shared-hosts.com
    By Annex in forum Domain Name Offers
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-15-2007, 11:51 AM
  4. Shared hosts in NY/NJ
    By Cavalier in forum Web Hosting
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-07-2005, 09:29 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •