Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    59

    LiteSpeed Vs Apache?

    which one is better LiteSpeed Vs Apache? also beside litespeed being faster does it lack anything compared to apache?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,334
    It depends on your situation and what you intend to serve. The comparison has been exhaustively covered on the web though, so you would probably do well to Google it.

    http://www.litespeedtech.com/litespeed-vs-apache.html

    (Also give lighthttpd a look: http://www.markround.com/archives/30...nchmarks.html_
    .
    » Kayako customer service software and live chat software- your customers deserve better than helpdesk

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, NY
    Posts
    1,501
    Quote Originally Posted by Jamie Edwards View Post
    It depends on your situation and what you intend to serve. The comparison has been exhaustively covered on the web though, so you would probably do well to Google it.

    http://www.litespeedtech.com/litespeed-vs-apache.html

    (Also give lighthttpd a look: http://www.markround.com/archives/30...nchmarks.html_
    I'm a huge proponent of Litespeed though the benchmarks provided on their website have a huge potential to be biased (for obvious reasons). I'd recommend searching out third party reviews.

    There was also a very informative discussion / debate going on about Litespeed you may want to look into:

    http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=893506
    Cody R.
    Hawk Host Inc. Proudly Serving websites since 2004.
    Official Let's Encrypt Sponsor

  4. #4
    I thinks that Apache performs better in serving the php pages. Whereas LiteSpeed performs awesome in serving the static pages.
    SUPPORT FACILITY | 24/7 TECH SUPPORT
    SERVER MANAGEMENT | WEB HOSTING SUPPORT | WP EXPERTS

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, NY
    Posts
    1,501
    Quote Originally Posted by inspiron View Post
    I thinks that Apache performs better in serving the php pages. Whereas LiteSpeed performs awesome in serving the static pages.
    Not quite, on both fronts. You may be confusing what people typically attribute to Lighttpd (static serving of files). Apache's PHP handling is nothing amazing, as a matter of fact the majority of the web servers serve PHP through FCGI or similar means. It has more to do with how they serve requests (Apache forks, etc).
    Cody R.
    Hawk Host Inc. Proudly Serving websites since 2004.
    Official Let's Encrypt Sponsor

  6. #6
    I'd go for Apache.

  7. #7
    It really depends on the situation, Many high traffic sites like vbulletin sites recommend Litespeed so i will suggest going with litespeed.
    www.24x7servermanagement.com
    Server Management, Server Security, Server Monitoring.
    India's Leading Managed Service Provider !! Skype: techs24x7

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NYC / Memphis, TN
    Posts
    1,454
    It's all about your preference. If you need a point and click then go with Litespeed. Otherwise, it offers very little advantage over Apache for the cost. Not to mention that you're going with a commercial product (closed source) with support only through the vendor. I can provide a more dependable business around Apache and know that it won't go away. Even if it did, I could support it myself. Can't do that with Litespeed. Preference.

    It's faster - OUT OF THE BOX. This is what people don't normally understand. Apache 2.2 can be configured to run comparable speeds. It is likely Apache will use more resources but it is much more flexible. The other thing to remember when considering your options is that anyone with a computer can be a developer for Apache. If you need a module, write it, have it written. If you need a module for Litespeed, beg for it and pray it can bring enough monetary gain for their developers so it will encourage them to write it.
    Last edited by PeakVPN-KH; 10-06-2009 at 02:27 AM.
    PeakVPN.Com | Complete Privacy VPN | Cloud Hosting | Guaranteed Security | 1Gbps-10Gbps Unmetered
    PeakVPN | 31 VPN Servers | 17-Years Experience | Emergency 24/7 Support
    Visit us @ PeakVPN.Com (Coming SOON) | ASN: 3915

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    59
    Thank you for answering my question, one more thing about rewrite rules are they supported in lightspeed?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, NY
    Posts
    1,501
    Quote Originally Posted by ServerOrigin View Post
    It's all about your preference. If you need a point and click then go with Litespeed. Otherwise, it offers very little advantage over Apache for the cost. Not to mention that you're going with a commercial product (closed source) with support only through the vendor. I can provide a more dependable business around Apache and know that it won't go away. Even if it did, I could support it myself. Can't do that with Litespeed. Preference.

    It's faster - OUT OF THE BOX. This is what people don't normally understand. Apache 2.2 can be configured to run comparable speeds. It is likely Apache will use more resources but it is much more flexible. The other thing to remember when considering your options is that anyone with a computer can be a developer for Apache. If you need a module, write it, have it written. If you need a module for Litespeed, beg for it and pray it can bring enough monetary gain for their developers so it will encourage them to write it.
    Did you bother to read the whole thread? The whole debate over tweaking Apache and making at at comparable speeds have been for the most part debunked / tossed aside - namely because the general consensus is out of all of the available web servers, Apache is the least performance friendly regardless with what you do with it.

    The more interesting (and more valid IMO) problem you bring up is it's a commercial product. I'm a huge advocate for open source and believe that's the proper business model to follow, but not to get too off topic it brings a whole slew of issues as well. Have you ever found an Apache bug, or a feature that was severely lacking and attempted to pursue it / bring it up to the developers / maintainers of Apache? The process is simply horrid - really not helping push the point that if there was something that was mission critical that needed to be fixed fast it would be done simply because it's open source. On the flip-side we've has numerous similar situations with Litespeed and have received very fast, personalized, and efficient patches and fixes for every problem we report.. the best part? They're usually within a ridiculous time frame (< 24 hours).

    Now not to discount open source - as I said I'm a huge advocate. I mainly have an issue with pushing partial truths in regards to it. In theory depending on the project philosophy, maintainers, and developers things could be fixed quickly and efficiently.. unfortunately when projects such as Apache (PHP too) get to a large size it becomes more difficult.

    As for the out-of-box argument it's also a partial truth - yes Litespeed performs better. This is simply a perk - you can absolutely tweak things within Litespeed to tweak it more depending on your environment. You're basically saying "Apache sucks at first, but with a lot of tweaking is can almost be like Litespeed with no tweaking!". That argument is well, poor.

    Thank you for answering my question, one more thing about rewrite rules are they supported in lightspeed?
    Yes, it's 100% backwards compatible. There is occasionally some goofy rules that don't work properly, though with our experience a simple inquiry / debugging session gets these resolved and fixed.
    Cody R.
    Hawk Host Inc. Proudly Serving websites since 2004.
    Official Let's Encrypt Sponsor

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    UK - London
    Posts
    73
    LiteSpeed performs better and from experience runs at faster speeds. It's easy to swap between litespeed and apache if there is a problem with one, which for me could be useful as a backup web server should it be needed. However, in my opinion, if you are hosting a few websites with medium-low bandwidth levels, apache is perfectly sufficient and there is no point in spending the money on litespeed. However, if you are hosting a large number of websites that demand medium-high levels of bandwidth or have surges in bandwidth, litespeed is excellent. Another useful plus is that LiteSpeed handles both DoS and DDoS excellently - whereas apache would be out in an instant.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    480
    Litespeed is faster on the same hardware. Therefore, the question you have to ask yourself is whether Apache would be faster if you spent the cost of the Litespeed licence on renting faster hardware.

    If your hardware is low-cost then its likely you'll get more of a gain from spending the money on faster kit. If your more toward the mid-highend, then Litespeed will probably be a better investment.

Similar Threads

  1. LiteSpeed vs Apache
    By LadySDevil in forum Hosting Security and Technology
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 07-21-2009, 12:24 AM
  2. LiteSpeed -> Apache
    By goooh in forum Hosting Security and Technology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-13-2009, 12:26 AM
  3. Litespeed & Apache
    By txitcs in forum Running a Web Hosting Business
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-22-2009, 12:52 PM
  4. apache vs litespeed
    By linktome in forum Hosting Software and Control Panels
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-13-2008, 08:37 PM
  5. LiteSpeed & Apache
    By CoolRock in forum Hosting Software and Control Panels
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-26-2008, 11:06 AM

Posting Permissions

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