Results 1 to 17 of 17
Thread: nginx vs litespeed benchmarks
-
02-19-2011, 01:44 PM #1Disabled
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Posts
- 1,426
nginx vs litespeed benchmarks
If anyone has a litespeed server that either throttling limits are disabled or you can whitelist the ab test server get with me to do some benchmarks. In my first bench i simply tested whmcs status page on a host I knew was running litespeed and compared to the company I worked for. So I think his litespeed throttled connections or something. But here is initial results.
If anyone has a litespeed server and wants to cooperate with me to put up same test file and so on, dynamic and static that would be great.
My company's nginx server
Code:Server Software: nginx Server Hostname: hostingrq.com Server Port: 80 Document Path: /clients/status/index.php Document Length: 206 bytes Concurrency Level: 10 Time taken for tests: 1.893071 seconds Complete requests: 100 Failed requests: 13 (Connect: 0, Length: 13, Exceptions: 0) Write errors: 0 Non-2xx responses: 87 Total transferred: 36543 bytes HTML transferred: 19456 bytes Requests per second: 52.82 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 189.307 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 18.931 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 18.49 [Kbytes/sec] received Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 42 42 0.4 42 43 Processing: 42 119 262.1 43 1591 Waiting: 42 118 262.2 43 1591 Total: 85 161 262.1 85 1634 Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) 50% 85 66% 86 75% 86 80% 86 90% 329 95% 801 98% 1353 99% 1634 100% 1634 (longest request)
Code:Server Software: LiteSpeed Server Hostname: ******.com Server Port: 80 Document Path: /clients/status/index.php Document Length: 128 bytes Concurrency Level: 10 Time taken for tests: 49.688669 seconds Complete requests: 100 Failed requests: 0 Write errors: 0 Total transferred: 29300 bytes HTML transferred: 12800 bytes Requests per second: 2.01 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 4968.867 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 496.887 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 0.56 [Kbytes/sec] received Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 81 236 661.9 81 3108 Processing: 94 4526 9238.6 1070 39088 Waiting: 92 4525 9238.6 1069 39087 Total: 177 4763 9201.6 1162 39171 Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) 50% 1162 66% 2031 75% 4173 80% 4255 90% 12272 95% 35190 98% 38203 99% 39171 100% 39171 (longest request)
-
02-19-2011, 09:23 PM #2WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
- Posts
- 140
Theres already been tests posted on the forums, litespeed won
-
02-19-2011, 09:48 PM #3Disabled
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Posts
- 1,426
-
02-19-2011, 09:59 PM #4Corporate Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Location
- Houston, Texas, USA
- Posts
- 3,262
Non-2xx responses: 87
By the way, are you looking to switch to Litespeed? Why not get a free trial and run a complete benchmark?
Regards
Joe / UNIXYUNIXy - Fully Managed Servers and Clusters - Established in 2006
Server Management - Unlimited Servers. Unlimited Requests. One Plan!
cPanel Varnish Plugin -- Seamless SSL Caching (Let's Encrypt, AutoSSL, etc)
Slow Site or Server? Unable to handle traffic? Same day performance fix: joe@unixy
-
02-19-2011, 10:06 PM #5Disabled
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Posts
- 1,426
no man I have ran litespeed and championed it for around 3 years now. I am looking for alternatives. I had turned on a few big site clients to them and used them as well, had some support issues but what really scares me about it is security, bad track record and only fixes I have seen so far as request filters, no hard code fix. And plus an open source platform for everything is ideal.
And yes php is configured ok, its suphp and server is on cloudlinux. Was thinking of trying fcgi. But probably need to adjust some throttling and other settings on my end as well to make a true benchmark. That is what I'm trying to do - find someone with litespeed who would wanna hook up and run some benches to both, making sure both environments are capable and not throttled.
And yeah was throttling on my part. Will fix for next bench
new one
Code:Server Software: nginx Server Hostname: hostingrq.com Server Port: 80 Document Path: /clients/status/index.php Document Length: 118 bytes Concurrency Level: 10 Time taken for tests: 11.483002 seconds Complete requests: 100 Failed requests: 0 Write errors: 0 Total transferred: 28800 bytes HTML transferred: 11800 bytes Requests per second: 8.71 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 1148.300 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 114.830 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) Transfer rate: 2.44 [Kbytes/sec] received Connection Times (ms) min mean[+/-sd] median max Connect: 42 42 0.2 42 43 Processing: 149 1100 1125.6 714 5800 Waiting: 148 1099 1125.5 713 5799 Total: 191 1142 1125.6 756 5842 Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms) 50% 756 66% 1353 75% 1556 80% 1858 90% 2322 95% 3279 98% 5795 99% 5842 100% 5842 (longest request)
Last edited by jon-f; 02-19-2011 at 10:17 PM.
-
02-19-2011, 10:34 PM #6Corporate Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Location
- Houston, Texas, USA
- Posts
- 3,262
UNIXy - Fully Managed Servers and Clusters - Established in 2006
Server Management - Unlimited Servers. Unlimited Requests. One Plan!
cPanel Varnish Plugin -- Seamless SSL Caching (Let's Encrypt, AutoSSL, etc)
Slow Site or Server? Unable to handle traffic? Same day performance fix: joe@unixy
-
02-19-2011, 10:41 PM #7Problem Solver
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Location
- California USA
- Posts
- 13,681
Cloudlinux is very aggressive at throttling litespeed.
Jon for comparison install fastcgi + apache with http://www.cloudlinux.com/docs/fastcgilve.php.
Its not uncommon to see triple the requests a second on the fastcgi then litespeed with lsphp when using cloudlinux. I just ran into this with a customer. There also seems to be quite a delay in initiating a LVE through cloudlinux.
For what its worth - there is a performance drop using the cloudlinux kernel over the stock centos 5 kernels. If your going for pure performance get rid of cloudlinux.
Litespeeds cloudlinux support seems kind of flaky to me. There has also been issues where litespeed will suck up 100% cpu which has been seen on several servers by me and is documented on the cloudlinux site.
Cloudlinux and apache seems quite good.Last edited by Steven; 02-19-2011 at 10:56 PM.
Steven Ciaburri | Industry's Best Server Management - Rack911.com
Software Auditing - 400+ Vulnerabilities Found - Quote @ https://www.RACK911Labs.com
Fully Managed Dedicated Servers (Las Vegas, New York City, & Amsterdam) (AS62710)
FreeBSD & Linux Server Management, Security Auditing, Server Optimization, PCI Compliance
-
02-20-2011, 12:04 AM #8WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
- Posts
- 140
-
02-20-2011, 12:33 AM #9Disabled
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Posts
- 1,426
man please quit sig spamming this thread if you have nothing useful to offer. AGAIN, no benchmarks within a year and only benchmarks on that thread are from the maker of litespeed. Face it, you tried to jump in the thread with a "hey why dont you use the search results" when you didnt even fully read my thread in the first place nor seen updates/replies to see what the goal is here.
I hate to be rude, but really though, why even jump in this thread unless you have either a nginx or lsws server to benchmark.
PLUS the goal is to compile new data here, NOT to search for old data and old threads about vs. vs vs.
For others who didnt bother to read, I am looking for someone to cooperate and provide new benchmarks with. To compile new data on this
-
02-20-2011, 12:37 AM #10Disabled
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Posts
- 1,426
Cloudlinux seems to be pretty good for shared hosting and ddos protected hosting but what is the equivalent or another way to limit per user resources?
I tried to install fastcgi on the httpd backend a time or two but all went to hell. I need a test server for that. The production server I tried on resulted in some downtime, Ill have to find the error I was getting but i may try it again soon.
Also on another note I think all hosts and server users should try to use open source software anyway instead of payware like litespeed. I don't think most people realize how many security issues litespeed has went through. Each of which I have seen only fixed by adding a mod security type request filter. It is still vulnerable to null byte, buffer overflows and other methods via bypass of the filters. I have seen it shown to meLast edited by jon-f; 02-20-2011 at 12:40 AM.
-
02-20-2011, 12:48 AM #11WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
- Posts
- 140
Considering I ran the benchmarks for nginx on that thread here and absolutely nothing has changed in the way nginx handles connections as per me reading the change logs due to having to maintain distro *packages* I think I may know what I'm talking about.
-
02-20-2011, 12:54 AM #12Disabled
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Posts
- 1,426
-
02-20-2011, 04:13 AM #13CISSP-ISSMP, CISA
- Join Date
- Aug 2002
- Location
- Seattle
- Posts
- 5,525
nginx:
- Better performance
- Can setup wildcard reverse proxies
- Free
Litespeed:
- Nice GUI
-
02-20-2011, 04:55 AM #14Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
- Posts
- 77
And yes php is configured ok, its suphp and server is on cloudlinux.
-
02-20-2011, 06:19 AM #15Web Hosting Evangelist
- Join Date
- May 2009
- Location
- London, United Kingdom
- Posts
- 472
██ KnownSRV.com - Privacy. Managed. Secure. Guaranteed!
██ Web Hosting | Dedicated Cloud VPS | Dedicated Server
██ YOUR Day and Night, Fully Managed Hosting Solutions with REAL 24/7 Support
-
02-20-2011, 10:33 AM #16WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
- Posts
- 140
-
02-21-2011, 04:42 AM #17Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Apr 2000
- Location
- Brisbane, Australia
- Posts
- 2,602
so benchmarked nginx vs litespeed from 2 different servers with different hardware configuration ? doesn't seem it would make a valid comparison ?? Remember if the site you're running apachebench against also utilizes mysql end, how mysql is configured and tuned between the 2 servers will also factor into performance.
Unfortunately, no experience with cloudlinux OS as I am solely CentOS fan so can't comment.
I've only done local server tests in non-whm environment (no spare whm server to test with yet) http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showth...70#post7267670 and http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/entry...itespeed-Cache. My main purpose was for vbulletin and wordpress performance as i use both professionally and for personal sites.: CentminMod.com Nginx Installer Nginx 1.25, PHP-FPM, MariaDB 10 CentOS (AlmaLinux/Rocky testing)
: Centmin Mod Latest Beta Nginx HTTP/2 HTTPS & HTTP/3 QUIC HTTPS supports TLS 1.3 via OpenSSL 1.1.1/3.0/3.1 or BoringSSL or QuicTLS OpenSSL
: Nginx & PHP-FPM Benchmarks: Centmin Mod vs EasyEngine vs Webinoly vs VestaCP vs OneInStack
Similar Threads
-
Nginx Admin: The Free cPanel Nginx automated installer Plugin
By JohnCS in forum Software & Scripts OffersReplies: 13Last Post: 05-21-2011, 11:45 AM -
Nginx Or LITESPEED on directadmin
By mixmox in forum Hosting Security and TechnologyReplies: 2Last Post: 01-18-2011, 09:11 AM -
Is Litespeed any better than Nginx?
By continuation in forum Dedicated ServerReplies: 22Last Post: 05-30-2010, 05:38 PM -
Hiring: Litespeed to Nginx convert services
By x264-BB in forum Employment / Job OffersReplies: 1Last Post: 04-22-2010, 11:45 PM -
Your Computers Benchmarks (PC and 3D)
By BrianF in forum Web Hosting LoungeReplies: 9Last Post: 07-30-2002, 10:33 PM