Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    613

    Comparison Litespeed V apache

    Hi all,

    just migrated from Apache + Nginx to Litespeed + Nginx (don't know how much work nginx is doing yet)

    The test.

    The server is a managed VPS with clubuptime 2 GB of ram (4 burst)
    75GB of disk space and 750Gb of bandwidth.

    The loadimpact website is usefull for seeing the stress a simulated load can put on a web server it's also good at seeing how long it takes for your page to load.


    A test result with Litespeed+Nginx

    http://loadimpact.com/result/www.jgw...86a97ca21791a4

    I have to be honest i didn't expect the page load times to drop that dramatically but have heard lots of things about litespeed's benefits over apache.

    but the evidence speaks for itself with apache at 50 users page load times averaged 5 seconds, with litespeed page load time is about 2.5 seconds at 50 users.

    joe
    www.JGwebhosting.co.uk - CPanel Control panel, domain registration, Reseller packages And 24X7 Technical support! - Now Taking in Hosting Refugee's

    www.JGpcrepair.co.uk - Computer repair, New Systems, Software, Hardware

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    227
    I think that your calculations are still a little bias...

    Being on a VPS you are bound to have different results everytime you run the tests, as it is still a shared environment.

    Something important to note is that Apache needs to be correctly configured in order to run at its best. A fully optimised and correctly configured apache should run as fast as any litespeed (providing same server, load, etc...)

    I have run tests on both before, same datacenters, same servers, same connectivity and saw very little difference.

    (although I admit it was a while ago now...)
    XelionOne
    Simple | Professional | Reliable
    Shared, Reseller, ShoutCast & Dedicated Hosting
    http://xelionone.com

  3. #3

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    613
    I have to agree about configuring apache but its not the easiest to configure I have no bias at all

    You are right about a vps being a shared environment but I have to say with apache over the last few days the test results have been fairly similar. 5 ish seconds at 50 users however at 10-30 the speed was an acceptable 2-3 seconds per page.

    However that is the 1st test I have performed with litespeed and its good so far

    one thing with apache is memory usage and processor load this is a hell of a lot less with litespeed apache would run between 3.5 and 5 % however litespeed seems to max at 0.81%

    joe

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    613
    I've tried varnish but got concerned with its caching to memory and I couldn't find out what would happen if I ran out of ram(by googling and asking the people in the know).

    So I went back to nginx which isn't as fast granted but has been around for forever and is used by lots of people

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by J Gwynne PC Repair View Post
    I've tried varnish but got concerned with its caching to memory and I couldn't find out what would happen if I ran out of ram(by googling and asking the people in the know)
    Joe gives info about this at http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showpo...&postcount=269

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    819
    I use nginx and Apache on one of my websites. Nginx serves the static content while Apache processes the PHP requests. My site does thousands of hits per second and the server copes well.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    227
    Never tried Varnish - any good??
    i know Nginx - worked with that for a while... Not bad - does help apache a bit!

    Oh and I agree!! Apache is a complete B***H to optimise!! It depends on so many factors!
    Last edited by XelionOne; 03-19-2011 at 02:04 PM. Reason: added last line...
    XelionOne
    Simple | Professional | Reliable
    Shared, Reseller, ShoutCast & Dedicated Hosting
    http://xelionone.com

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    613
    Varnish is great,when i tested it on loadimpact the results where amazing

    the only concern i had was the ram caching (running out of ram)

    joe
    www.JGwebhosting.co.uk - CPanel Control panel, domain registration, Reseller packages And 24X7 Technical support! - Now Taking in Hosting Refugee's

    www.JGpcrepair.co.uk - Computer repair, New Systems, Software, Hardware

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    533
    That doesn't sound right at all. If your main site is static html then I would expect similar performance levels between Nginx and Litespeed.


    Tuxlite.com Complete LAMP and LNMP script for Debian and Ubuntu.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    613
    No my site is a joomla template which is php.

    Joe

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,766
    Can Varnish be installed on a site with active sites (without reinstalling all the sites?)

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    I'm Lost...Help
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by fshagan View Post
    Can Varnish be installed on a site with active sites (without reinstalling all the sites?)
    To keep it simple, yes it can.
    Kevin Kopp - MonsterMegs Business Class Hosting Services
    Pure SSD Powered Shared, Reseller, and Enterprise Hosting Solutions
    US & NL Locations :: [US] PhoenixNAP | [NL] EvoSwitch Datacenters

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    533
    Ah, well I'm assuming you run suPHP so it will be slower than a "fastcgi" like PHP (LSAPI) that litespeed uses.


    Tuxlite.com Complete LAMP and LNMP script for Debian and Ubuntu.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Houston, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,955
    Quote Originally Posted by J Gwynne PC Repair View Post
    Varnish is great,when i tested it on loadimpact the results where amazing

    the only concern i had was the ram caching (running out of ram)

    joe
    You can limit the amount of memory that Varnish can consume on a server. Be it 8M, 9M, 21M, or 2.6G. If it needs more RAM than it's allocated, it will starting moving unused objects to disk (similar to swapping).

    Regards
    Joe / UNIXY
    UNIXy - Fully Managed Servers and Clusters - Established in 2006
    [ cPanel Varnish Nginx Plugin ] - Enhance LiteSpeed and Apache Performance
    www.unixy.net - Los Angeles | Houston | Atlanta | Rotterdam
    Love to help pro bono (time permitting). joe > unixy.net

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    613
    Yeah I'm aware of that now, however I wasn't at the time. I was very impressed with varnish (the plugin you provide for cpanel is great as well) it was just my concern over the ram caching

    Joe

Similar Threads

  1. litespeed vs apache
    By thiva78 in forum Dedicated Server
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 01-31-2011, 05:39 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-08-2010, 05:13 PM
  3. Apache Or Litespeed ????? and WHY ????
    By mixmox in forum Hosting Security and Technology
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 06-10-2010, 09:22 PM
  4. Apache vs Litespeed
    By Alan108 in forum Web Hosting
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-08-2009, 09:54 PM
  5. apache vs litespeed
    By linktome in forum Hosting Software and Control Panels
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-13-2008, 08:37 PM

Posting Permissions

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