Results 76 to 100 of 143
Thread: LiteSpeed Vs Apache Showdown
-
01-23-2010, 01:51 AM #76Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- Nov 2003
- Posts
- 350
Setup port 8081 as 1-CPU, port 8082 as 2-CPU, port 8084 as 4-cpu, 8088 as 8-CPU
4 ab clients against 4-CPU result:
5824.48+5775.94+5704.83+5646.85=22952.1
Code:[root@centos-magic conf]# ab -n 100000 -c 100 http://localhost:8084/test.html & ab -n 100000 -c 100 http://localhost:8084/test.html & ab -n 100000 -c 100 http://localhost:8084/test.html & ab -n 100000 -c 100 http://localhost:8084/test.html & [1] 15923 [2] 15924 [3] 15925 [4] 15926 [root@centos-magic conf]# This is ApacheBench, Version 2.0.40-dev <$Revision: 1.146 $> apache-2.0 Copyright 1996 Adam Twiss, Zeus Technology Ltd, http://www.zeustech.net/ Copyright 2006 The Apache Software Foundation, http://www.apache.org/ This is ApacheBench, Version 2.0.40-dev <$Revision: 1.146 $> apache-2.0 Copyright 1996 Adam Twiss, Zeus Technology Ltd, http://www.zeustech.net/ Copyright 2006 The Apache Software Foundation, http://www.apache.org/ Benchmarking localhost (be patient) Benchmarking localhost (be patient) This is ApacheBench, Version 2.0.40-dev <$Revision: 1.146 $> apache-2.0 Copyright 1996 Adam Twiss, Zeus Technology Ltd, http://www.zeustech.net/ Copyright 2006 The Apache Software Foundation, http://www.apache.org/ Benchmarking localhost (be patient) This is ApacheBench, Version 2.0.40-dev <$Revision: 1.146 $> apache-2.0 Copyright 1996 Adam Twiss, Zeus Technology Ltd, http://www.zeustech.net/ Copyright 2006 The Apache Software Foundation, http://www.apache.org/ Benchmarking localhost (be patient) Completed 10000 requests Completed 10000 requests Completed 10000 requests Completed 10000 requests Completed 20000 requests Completed 20000 requests Completed 20000 requests Completed 20000 requests Completed 30000 requests Completed 30000 requests Completed 30000 requests Completed 30000 requests Completed 40000 requests Completed 40000 requests Completed 40000 requests Completed 40000 requests Completed 50000 requests Completed 50000 requests Completed 50000 requests Completed 50000 requests Completed 60000 requests Completed 60000 requests Completed 60000 requests Completed 60000 requests Completed 70000 requests Completed 70000 requests Completed 70000 requests Completed 70000 requests Completed 80000 requests Completed 80000 requests Completed 80000 requests Completed 80000 requests Completed 90000 requests Completed 90000 requests Completed 90000 requests Completed 90000 requests Finished 100000 requests Server Software: LiteSpeed Server Hostname: localhost Server Port: 8084 Document Path: /test.html Document Length: 101 bytes Concurrency Level: 100 Time taken for tests: 17.168913 seconds Complete requests: 100000 Failed requests: 0 Write errors: 0 Total transferred: 33705392 bytes HTML transferred: 10101616 bytes Requests per second: 5824.48 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 17.169 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 0.172 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 1917.13 [Kbytes/sec] received Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 0 2 2.5 2 42 Processing: 3 14 5.8 12 50 Waiting: 0 6 3.5 5 32 Total: 4 16 7.1 14 72 Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) 50% 14 66% 15 75% 16 80% 18 90% 28 95% 34 98% 38 99% 42 100% 72 (longest request) Finished 100000 requests Server Software: LiteSpeed Server Hostname: localhost Server Port: 8084 Document Path: /test.html Document Length: 101 bytes Concurrency Level: 100 Time taken for tests: 17.313188 seconds Complete requests: 100000 Failed requests: 0 Write errors: 0 Total transferred: 33702359 bytes HTML transferred: 10100707 bytes Requests per second: 5775.94 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 17.313 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 0.173 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 1900.98 [Kbytes/sec] received Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 0 2 2.3 2 34 Processing: 3 14 6.0 12 49 Waiting: 0 6 3.6 5 36 Total: 4 16 7.2 14 55 Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) 50% 14 66% 15 75% 16 80% 18 90% 29 95% 34 98% 38 99% 41 100% 55 (longest request) Finished 100000 requests Server Software: LiteSpeed Server Hostname: localhost Server Port: 8084 Document Path: /test.html Document Length: 101 bytes Concurrency Level: 100 Time taken for tests: 17.529004 seconds Complete requests: 100000 Failed requests: 0 Write errors: 0 Total transferred: 33704718 bytes HTML transferred: 10101414 bytes Requests per second: 5704.83 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 17.529 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 0.175 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 1877.69 [Kbytes/sec] received Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 0 2 2.6 2 37 Processing: 4 14 6.0 12 54 Waiting: 0 6 3.6 5 42 Total: 5 16 7.4 14 68 Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) 50% 14 66% 15 75% 17 80% 19 90% 29 95% 34 98% 39 99% 41 100% 68 (longest request) Finished 100000 requests Server Software: LiteSpeed Server Hostname: localhost Server Port: 8084 Document Path: /test.html Document Length: 101 bytes Concurrency Level: 100 Time taken for tests: 17.708981 seconds Complete requests: 100000 Failed requests: 0 Write errors: 0 Total transferred: 33705055 bytes HTML transferred: 10101515 bytes Requests per second: 5646.85 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 17.709 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 0.177 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 1858.66 [Kbytes/sec] received Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 0 2 2.4 2 27 Processing: 4 14 6.3 12 63 Waiting: 0 6 3.7 5 45 Total: 4 17 7.4 14 71 Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) 50% 14 66% 16 75% 17 80% 21 90% 30 95% 34 98% 38 99% 41 100% 71 (longest request) [1] Done ab -n 100000 -c 100 http://localhost:8084/test.html [2] Done ab -n 100000 -c 100 http://localhost:8084/test.html [3]- Done ab -n 100000 -c 100 http://localhost:8084/test.html [4]+ Done ab -n 100000 -c 100 http://localhost:8084/test.html [root@centos-magic conf]#
LiteSpeed Web Acceleration Platform by https://www.litespeedtech.com
Apache drop-in replacement. Triple server capacity with 10X performance increases.
Ultimate web serving platform for WordPress, Magento and other web applications.
Turbo charging all WordPress sites hosted on your server with a single click!
-
01-23-2010, 02:54 AM #77Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Posts
- 2,203
Seems nwmcsween's numbers are higher than mistwang's? Where do you get 10580 from?
-
01-23-2010, 03:01 AM #78Uptime Aficionado
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Location
- /usr/bin/perl
- Posts
- 971
-
01-23-2010, 03:32 AM #79WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
- Posts
- 140
-
01-23-2010, 03:53 AM #80Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Posts
- 2,203
I see, so Litespeed still outperforms nginx by a huge margin.
-
01-23-2010, 06:20 AM #81WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
- Posts
- 140
-
01-23-2010, 11:13 AM #82Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- Nov 2003
- Posts
- 350
LiteSpeed can deliver around 7700 req/s with around 30% cpu utilization on single CPU, you can test it against port 8081. How much CPU does nginx uses to serving around 7900 req/s?
LiteSpeed Web Acceleration Platform by https://www.litespeedtech.com
Apache drop-in replacement. Triple server capacity with 10X performance increases.
Ultimate web serving platform for WordPress, Magento and other web applications.
Turbo charging all WordPress sites hosted on your server with a single click!
-
01-25-2010, 01:05 PM #83Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- Nov 2003
- Posts
- 350
Let's moving forward with pending benchmark tests.
Lighttpd: small file keepalive test
Nginix: small file keepalive test, PHP hello world test
Lighttpd only use one worker process, it can be configured to use multiple workers, you can give a try to get better result.LiteSpeed Web Acceleration Platform by https://www.litespeedtech.com
Apache drop-in replacement. Triple server capacity with 10X performance increases.
Ultimate web serving platform for WordPress, Magento and other web applications.
Turbo charging all WordPress sites hosted on your server with a single click!
-
01-25-2010, 02:29 PM #84Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jun 2003
- Location
- London, UK
- Posts
- 1,765
Could we try something "real world" like hitting a base wordpress install with the default theme?
Darren Lingham - Stablepoint Hosting
Stablepoint - Cloud Web Hosting without compromise
We provide industry-leading cPanel™ web hosting in 80+ global cities.
-
01-25-2010, 02:36 PM #85Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Posts
- 865
It would certainly be a lot more relevant with some real-life numbers containing actual processing and database requests. While handling tons and tons of small requests fast could be useful during a DDoS, you can get a lot of hardware firewall for $800/month.
-
01-25-2010, 03:40 PM #86Uptime Aficionado
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Location
- /usr/bin/perl
- Posts
- 971
-
01-25-2010, 04:14 PM #87Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Posts
- 1,717
I don't think the types of files being served are skewing the results any (and I'm an Apache fanboy, so I'd be the first to cry foul!) - any wordpress site that's going to be taking 20+k hits/sec is going to be using super cache, and I doubt (though I admit I'm not terribly well educated on the subject) the difference between these tiny files and the average static files super cache builds is going to do much of anything except affect network performance.
I used to run the oldest commercial Mumble host.
-
01-25-2010, 04:47 PM #88Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Posts
- 3,944
These results look strange to me. Personally I have tested with NGINX on my single processor quad-core and have gotten results equal to or greater than what is shown and for a more intense HTML file (>1KB) and much better results for A hello world PHP.
I think there needs to be more organization with your testing as results are sporadic as of now.
-
01-25-2010, 04:57 PM #89Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
- Location
- Canada
- Posts
- 3,785
Sort of silly because then you're testing things outside the web servers control that will not change anything. The speed at which the wordpress portion of the processing is done will not change between servers. What changes even in a PHP test is before anything else happens as far as PHP. So a hello world test makes far more sense. All you're doing with the wordpress test is slowing each one down equally. They cannot magically make PHP itself faster. They just make the SAPI portion faster nothing else.█ Tony B. - Chief Executive Officer
█ Hawk Host Inc. Proudly serving websites since 2004
█ Quality Shared and Cloud Hosting
█ PHP 5.2.x - PHP 8.1.X Support!
-
01-25-2010, 05:08 PM #90Uptime Aficionado
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Location
- /usr/bin/perl
- Posts
- 971
-
01-25-2010, 06:22 PM #91Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2001
- Location
- Dayton, Ohio
- Posts
- 4,977
Personally I would do the tests with a few web common web apps with actual data and then use both ab and siege to generate load. I've been using siege lately to load test and I quite like it but ab will always be in my toolkit.
The nice thing about siege is that you can pass it a file of several URLs and have it try to simulate actual user patterns. This is leads to better real world results. Hitting the front page of a site repeatedly is great for testing attack resistance but very poor for user experience testing.
-
01-25-2010, 06:31 PM #92Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Posts
- 3,944
-
01-25-2010, 07:11 PM #93Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
- Location
- Earth
- Posts
- 8,154
-
01-25-2010, 07:32 PM #94Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Posts
- 2,222
Mmm.
OK, I've never used nginx; but I downloaded the source, compiled it, and ran it on my 4GB Pentium dual-core E5200 desktop machine running Fedora 11. I test using ab and 127.0.0.1
With a single ab instance, I got
5000-6000 requests a second: ab -n 30000 127.0.0.1:8181/test.html
10000-11000 requests a second: ab -k -n 30000 127.0.0.1:8181/test.html
14000-20000 requests a second: ab -c 100 -k -n 30000 127.0.0.1:8181/test.html
Here's the output from the 20,000 requests-a-second run
$ ab -c 100 -k -n 30000 127.0.0.1:8181/test.html
This is ApacheBench, Version 2.3 <$Revision: 655654 $>
Copyright 1996 Adam Twiss, Zeus Technology Ltd, http://www.zeustech.net/
Licensed to The Apache Software Foundation, http://www.apache.org/
Benchmarking 127.0.0.1 (be patient)
Completed 3000 requests
Completed 6000 requests
Completed 9000 requests
Completed 12000 requests
Completed 15000 requests
Completed 18000 requests
Completed 21000 requests
Completed 24000 requests
Completed 27000 requests
Completed 30000 requests
Finished 30000 requests
Server Software: nginx/0.7.64
Server Hostname: 127.0.0.1
Server Port: 8181
Document Path: /test.html
Document Length: 101 bytes
Concurrency Level: 100
Time taken for tests: 1.467 seconds
Complete requests: 30000
Failed requests: 0
Write errors: 0
Keep-Alive requests: 29748
Total transferred: 9509374 bytes
HTML transferred: 3030202 bytes
Requests per second: 20450.01 [#/sec] (mean)
Time per request: 4.890 [ms] (mean)
Time per request: 0.049 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
Transfer rate: 6330.30 [Kbytes/sec] received
Connection Times (ms)
min mean[+/-sd] median max
Connect: 0 0 1.0 0 23
Processing: 0 5 6.6 4 118
Waiting: 0 5 6.6 4 118
Total: 0 5 6.7 4 119
Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
50% 4
66% 5
75% 6
80% 7
90% 8
95% 9
98% 15
99% 23
100% 119 (longest request)
-
01-25-2010, 07:44 PM #95Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Posts
- 3,944
Yes, I'm guessing there is either something configured wrong with the previous nginx test or some type of bottleneck. It is also the developmental version he used, not the stable. I'll hop on the server and run the test once given access.
-
01-25-2010, 08:07 PM #96Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- Nov 2003
- Posts
- 350
LiteSpeed Web Acceleration Platform by https://www.litespeedtech.com
Apache drop-in replacement. Triple server capacity with 10X performance increases.
Ultimate web serving platform for WordPress, Magento and other web applications.
Turbo charging all WordPress sites hosted on your server with a single click!
-
01-25-2010, 08:22 PM #97Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- Nov 2003
- Posts
- 350
5000-6000 requests a second: ab -n 30000 127.0.0.1:8181/test.html
10000-11000 requests a second: ab -k -n 30000 127.0.0.1:8181/test.html
14000-20000 requests a second: ab -c 100 -k -n 30000 127.0.0.1:8181/test.html
For keepalive test on the test server, nginx does around 25000 reqs/sec, lighttpd does around 9000 reqs/sec, LiteSpeed does around 30000 reqs/sec for single ab client test.LiteSpeed Web Acceleration Platform by https://www.litespeedtech.com
Apache drop-in replacement. Triple server capacity with 10X performance increases.
Ultimate web serving platform for WordPress, Magento and other web applications.
Turbo charging all WordPress sites hosted on your server with a single click!
-
01-26-2010, 08:27 PM #98Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- Nov 2003
- Posts
- 350
We have improved LiteSpeed non-keepalive performance by another 10%, so I expect LiteSpeed can deliver around 8500 req/s on the test server with one ab client.
However, the test server is not accessible now, so I cannot confirm the number.
e-Sensibility,
Are we going to continue finishing the showdown?LiteSpeed Web Acceleration Platform by https://www.litespeedtech.com
Apache drop-in replacement. Triple server capacity with 10X performance increases.
Ultimate web serving platform for WordPress, Magento and other web applications.
Turbo charging all WordPress sites hosted on your server with a single click!
-
01-26-2010, 09:14 PM #99Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Posts
- 2,203
-
02-02-2010, 08:43 PM #100Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Posts
- 2,203
So, no one wants to update this?
Similar Threads
-
Apache vs Litespeed
By Alan108 in forum Web HostingReplies: 4Last Post: 10-08-2009, 09:54 PM -
LiteSpeed Vs Apache?
By leanfarrell in forum Hosting Security and TechnologyReplies: 11Last Post: 10-06-2009, 03:25 PM -
LiteSpeed vs Apache
By LadySDevil in forum Hosting Security and TechnologyReplies: 51Last Post: 07-21-2009, 12:24 AM -
LiteSpeed -> Apache
By goooh in forum Hosting Security and TechnologyReplies: 6Last Post: 07-13-2009, 12:26 AM -
apache vs litespeed
By linktome in forum Hosting Software and Control PanelsReplies: 1Last Post: 07-13-2008, 08:37 PM