Results 51 to 75 of 126
Thread: Litespeed Server Performance
-
10-06-2009, 04:10 AM #51Disabled
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- Location
- A box
- Posts
- 2,051
To start out, we switched to LiteSpeed after having muple server management companies look over a server that was appraching its "capacity" and tell us there was nothing we could do but upgrade the hardware to avoid any more problems. What did we do? Take advantage of the drop in replacement that is fully compatible with Apache (even reading Apache's config files!).
To sum up our experience with Apache 2.2 Tweaked for performance/resources & LiteSpeed non-tweaked....
LiteSpeed 4 enabled on the server, hardly any wait time, using 45% of the memory, and a load of two using a 1 core license on a 16 core machine.....
Apache 2.2 tweaked (non-prefork...etc) RAM 100%, Load 76.0 within minutes and climbing by the minute... Apache finally becomes unstable and refuses to serve any longer... server was dead within 5 minutes of switching LiteSpeed out for Apache...
We don't need benchmarks to prove LiteSpeed is better. We already know it.
/End Thread?
-
10-06-2009, 04:24 AM #52Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- NYC / Memphis, TN
- Posts
- 1,454
Not for us to judge but we've done benchmarks of our own and it was going to be really stupid of us to switch to Litespeed because (on average) Apache was serving our sites comparatively or faster.
Litespeed has some advantages but it definitely has its faults. Somehow everyone overlooks the faults and talks about how great it is. It's great until they are sold or go under and then you're all left to try and keep your customers afloat when your licenses stop working.
They state it VERY clear, "small company". Extremely small with 1 real developer. It's a dangerous tightrope any litespeed customer is walking. HyperVM all over again, imo. If they were a big business and had a real development staff then it wouldn't be such a concern. Although, I've been one of those people to place a ticket and the one guy who knows the answer is "out" for a few days. Scary people would put their business in the hands of a product lacking that much in terms of development.
Not to say that Litespeed isn't an excellent product. Though, when compared to Apache, it isn't a feat of wonder Lighttpd and nginx easily compare and in terms of flexibility, Apache wins hands down.Last edited by PeakVPN-KH; 10-06-2009 at 04:29 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
-
10-06-2009, 04:33 AM #53Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- May 2008
- Location
- EU
- Posts
- 94
Based on info from LS forum, it appears that the latest version has some kind of bug which randomly lets people download PHP files instead of executing them:
http://www.litespeedtech.com/support...?t=3101&page=5
And there hasn't been any releases after this bug report, not sure how serious is this, but I wouldn't want my php files to be downloaded.
Btw twitter used Litespeed at some point, but if you check what server they are running now, it says "Hi".
-
10-06-2009, 05:02 AM #54Cloud & Web Hosting Specialist
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Posts
- 4,332
-
10-06-2009, 05:06 AM #55Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Location
- South East U.K.
- Posts
- 1,303
-
10-06-2009, 05:10 AM #56Cloud & Web Hosting Specialist
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Posts
- 4,332
-
10-06-2009, 02:18 PM #57Disabled
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
- Posts
- 368
I wonder what do you mean with tweaked?
There must have being something wrong on your apache config, what you basically say is litespeed performs 38 times better. Thats to good to be truth. I really wish this is truth, because then we are all stupids running apache. 90% of webhosting companies instead of deploying more servers would just implement litespeed.
Some people share your opinion, and then others say apache 2 with worker if tuned runs with the same performance.
I wonder then if litespeed can be also tuned, as you said LiteSpeed non-tweaked.
Is this on a php dynamic environment? So you run it on only 1 core without any issues even when its on a 16 core server?Last edited by PYDOT; 10-06-2009 at 02:23 PM.
-
10-06-2009, 02:21 PM #58Disabled
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
- Posts
- 368
-
10-06-2009, 03:38 PM #59Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
- Location
- Canada
- Posts
- 3,785
The number of core licenses is how many processes of lshttpd there will be. So if most of the CPU is dynamic content then one core license is fine. If you have a lot of static content you may need more lshttpd processes available.
The model it uses is similar to this experimental mpm: http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/event.html. Same idea as nginx and lighttpd as well.
If people say their Apache performs better than litespeed I assume they can make it perform better than nginx and lighttpd as well?█ 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!
-
10-06-2009, 04:39 PM #60Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Posts
- 1,272
Who is Litespeed to tell me that porn "deteriorates human moral values". I wish them nothing other than failure. I hate it when people push there moral feeling on others. Companies like these don't go every far.
-
10-06-2009, 05:11 PM #61Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Posts
- 654
Their assumption that they have the right to determine "morality" is the reason I will never purchase Litespeed, regardless of performance. That said, it doesn't have much to do with performance. You could, however, argue that a full benchmark of Litespeed is impossible, because one is disallowed from benchmarking its performance serving the majority of web traffic.
[GB ≠ GiB] [MB ≠ MiB] [kB ≠ kiB] [1000 ≠ 1024] [Giga ≠ gram] [Mega ≠ milli] [Kelvin ≠ kilo] [Byte ≠ bit]
There is no millibit. There is no gram-bit. There is no Kelvin-Byte.
-
10-06-2009, 06:49 PM #62Junior Guru
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Posts
- 181
IN LSWS switching between versions is matter of seconds, so you can have few versions precompiled and just switch between them without any downtime.
I'm currently using 4.0.6 version and I can say I'm happy with it, under DDOS my sites stay responsive which I couldn't say about Apache.
-
10-06-2009, 07:22 PM #63CISSP-ISSMP, CISA
- Join Date
- Aug 2002
- Location
- Seattle
- Posts
- 5,525
-
10-06-2009, 07:39 PM #64Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Posts
- 654
IRCCo Jeff: Less extraordinary claims, and more evidence, please.
[GB ≠ GiB] [MB ≠ MiB] [kB ≠ kiB] [1000 ≠ 1024] [Giga ≠ gram] [Mega ≠ milli] [Kelvin ≠ kilo] [Byte ≠ bit]
There is no millibit. There is no gram-bit. There is no Kelvin-Byte.
-
10-06-2009, 08:20 PM #65CISSP-ISSMP, CISA
- Join Date
- Aug 2002
- Location
- Seattle
- Posts
- 5,525
-
10-06-2009, 09:40 PM #66Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Posts
- 2,253
-
10-06-2009, 09:43 PM #67Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Posts
- 654
[GB ≠ GiB] [MB ≠ MiB] [kB ≠ kiB] [1000 ≠ 1024] [Giga ≠ gram] [Mega ≠ milli] [Kelvin ≠ kilo] [Byte ≠ bit]
There is no millibit. There is no gram-bit. There is no Kelvin-Byte.
-
10-06-2009, 10:06 PM #68CISSP-ISSMP, CISA
- Join Date
- Aug 2002
- Location
- Seattle
- Posts
- 5,525
-
10-06-2009, 11:46 PM #69Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Posts
- 2,203
http://www.litespeedtech.com/support...9&postcount=16
I suggest you read the entire thread.
-
10-06-2009, 11:50 PM #70Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Posts
- 654
That thread is evidence of nothing. Show me a benchmark.
[GB ≠ GiB] [MB ≠ MiB] [kB ≠ kiB] [1000 ≠ 1024] [Giga ≠ gram] [Mega ≠ milli] [Kelvin ≠ kilo] [Byte ≠ bit]
There is no millibit. There is no gram-bit. There is no Kelvin-Byte.
-
10-07-2009, 12:00 AM #71Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Posts
- 2,203
I think real world examples are more convincing than benchmarks. Are you saying that those people lied?
-
10-07-2009, 12:27 AM #72Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Posts
- 654
I an example of somebody thinking that switching to another HTTP server is the answer to a DoS. I don't see any information on what he's actually serving. Plain HTML? PHP with LS SAPI? PHP through FastCGI with PHP-FPM, spawn-fcgi, or daemonize? Ruby through FastCGI? CGI through FastCGI? WSGI? SCGI? Was the DoS still occurring at the exact same level once LS was installed? Were any iptables or firewall stuff changed?
In other words, useless for actually comparing performance.[GB ≠ GiB] [MB ≠ MiB] [kB ≠ kiB] [1000 ≠ 1024] [Giga ≠ gram] [Mega ≠ milli] [Kelvin ≠ kilo] [Byte ≠ bit]
There is no millibit. There is no gram-bit. There is no Kelvin-Byte.
-
10-07-2009, 04:45 AM #73Junior Guru
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Posts
- 181
-
10-07-2009, 04:50 AM #74Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- May 2008
- Location
- EU
- Posts
- 94
Yeah the trial license is 2 core enterprise version.
-
10-07-2009, 10:41 AM #75Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Posts
- 1,717
I'm not saying they're idiots by any stretch of the imagination, my only gripe about performance is that LiteSpeed base their benchmarks on the Prefork MPM which only really describes it's effectiveness to the exact group of people you just described. If LSWS works out superior for you, that's awesome - but it's not for everyone.
Who knows, if we start selling a bunch of webhost packages (web hosting isn't our primary business market at the moment) I might wind up needing to switch. However for our current use, Apache's working reasonably well for us given that most of what it's serving is static content. Comparing Apache/Litespeed to lighttpd/nginx is apples-to-oranges, you're comparing full-featured serving platforms to very nice pieces of software that are unfortunately lacking in some features.
Find below benchmarks that I messed around with, I do understand they're not definitive by any stretch of the imagination. I made no attempts to tune LiteSpeed at all, but then again our Apache 2.2 is hardly tuned either (more or less just Worker MPM and the other usual suspects). I also fully realize it's quite low bandwidth and low concurrency compared to where LSWS really shines, but this was the best I could manage without having the VPS I was running the benchmarks from run out of steam (numbers got higher on both, without the load going up on the server significantly).
It shows that for my purposes (obviously not the same as everyone's), LSWS is not the obvious improvement everyone seems to make out it is:
Code:Server Software: Apache/2.2.11 Server Port: 80 Document Path: /index.html Document Length: 834 bytes Concurrency Level: 100 Time taken for tests: 0.859599 seconds Complete requests: 800 Failed requests: 0 Write errors: 0 Total transferred: 931563 bytes HTML transferred: 668034 bytes Requests per second: 930.67 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 107.450 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 1.074 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 1057.47 [Kbytes/sec] received Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 45 46 0.2 46 47 Processing: 46 49 5.5 48 70 Waiting: 46 49 5.3 47 69 Total: 92 95 5.5 94 116 Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) 50% 94 66% 94 75% 95 80% 95 90% 103 95% 112 98% 114 99% 115 100% 116 (longest request) Server Software: LiteSpeed Server Port: 8088 Document Path: /index.html Document Length: 834 bytes Concurrency Level: 100 Time taken for tests: 0.844408 seconds Complete requests: 800 Failed requests: 0 Write errors: 0 Total transferred: 857600 bytes HTML transferred: 667200 bytes Requests per second: 947.41 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 105.551 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 1.056 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 991.23 [Kbytes/sec] received Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 45 46 0.2 46 47 Processing: 46 47 1.7 47 54 Waiting: 46 47 1.4 47 54 Total: 92 93 1.7 94 100 Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) 50% 94 66% 94 75% 94 80% 94 90% 95 95% 98 98% 99 99% 100 100% 100 (longest request)
I used to run the oldest commercial Mumble host.
Similar Threads
-
High Performance Litespeed Powered Hosting Resellers
By jon-f in forum Reseller Hosting OffersReplies: 0Last Post: 07-02-2009, 12:26 PM -
Secureservertech - High Performance Litespeed Hosting
By jon-f in forum Shared Hosting OffersReplies: 0Last Post: 07-01-2009, 05:20 PM -
High Performance Litespeed Hosting Solutions
By jon-f in forum Shared Hosting OffersReplies: 0Last Post: 08-08-2008, 04:29 AM -
High Performance Litespeed Powered Hosting
By jon-f in forum Shared Hosting OffersReplies: 0Last Post: 05-11-2008, 06:05 PM -
High Performance Cpanel/WHM Resellers | Litespeed Powered
By jon-f in forum Reseller Hosting OffersReplies: 0Last Post: 10-27-2007, 01:45 PM