Results 1 to 12 of 12
Thread: LiteSpeed Vs Apache?
-
10-05-2009, 09:18 AM #1Junior Guru Wannabe
- 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?
-
10-05-2009, 09:27 AM #2Web Hosting Master
- 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
-
10-05-2009, 10:08 AM #3Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Buffalo, NY
- Posts
- 1,501
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
-
10-05-2009, 10:20 AM #4Support Facility
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Posts
- 2,335
I thinks that Apache performs better in serving the php pages. Whereas LiteSpeed performs awesome in serving the static pages.
-
10-05-2009, 10:29 AM #5Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Buffalo, NY
- Posts
- 1,501
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
-
10-05-2009, 11:40 PM #6Newbie
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Posts
- 5
I'd go for Apache.
-
10-06-2009, 01:55 AM #7Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Posts
- 2,349
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
-
10-06-2009, 02:24 AM #8Web Hosting Master
- 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
-
10-06-2009, 05:20 AM #9Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Posts
- 59
Thank you for answering my question, one more thing about rewrite rules are they supported in lightspeed?
-
10-06-2009, 11:37 AM #10Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Buffalo, NY
- Posts
- 1,501
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?█ Cody R.
█ Hawk Host Inc. Proudly Serving websites since 2004.
█ Official Let's Encrypt Sponsor
-
10-06-2009, 03:03 PM #11Junior Guru Wannabe
- 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.
-
10-06-2009, 03:25 PM #12Web Hosting Evangelist
- 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
-
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 -
Litespeed & Apache
By txitcs in forum Running a Web Hosting BusinessReplies: 10Last Post: 04-22-2009, 12:52 PM -
apache vs litespeed
By linktome in forum Hosting Software and Control PanelsReplies: 1Last Post: 07-13-2008, 08:37 PM -
LiteSpeed & Apache
By CoolRock in forum Hosting Software and Control PanelsReplies: 7Last Post: 03-26-2008, 11:06 AM