Page 8 of 18 FirstFirst ... 567891011 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 267
  1. #106
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    In the Internets
    Posts
    3,383
    Quote Originally Posted by brentpresley View Post
    Alright, why don't we put this to a test, and end the dispute once and for all.

    I will donate a VDS with up to 4 cores and 8GB of RAM for testing of LiteSpeed vs. UNIXy Varnish.

    Prior to the test, I need someone to select a grouping of websites to be loaded onto the server as a "representative sampling" of current-day dynamic and static web content. A fair mix, so to speak, of what users actually USE in 2011.

    I will give each party 1 week to install, configure, and optimize their setup prior to testing.

    For testing purposes, AppLogic provides a built-in load generator that can max out just about any server I have EVER seen, and can be customized to use as many URLs as we want. It gives statistics back on the response rate from the server.

    Any other agreed-upon benchmark utilities can also be run.



    Does this sound fair to everyone?
    It was already done:

    http://www.litespeedtech.com/support...hlight=varnish
      0 Not allowed!

  2. #107
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by nerdie View Post
    So did you actually read the test page?

    The "test" page was a static PHP page (Document Path: /phpinfo.php
    Document Length: 39265 bytes).

    Completely static page that is not exactly representative of dynamic content.


    Furthermore, the testing was ONLY done by LiteSpeed staff. Not implying anything, but if you want the results to be viewed as fair and unbiased, they cannot be the ones doing the testing.


    Thirdly, they did not tell us the details of their server setup. And better yet, give us the Varnish VCL file to examine for ourselves. The configuration of the server tested is pretty much left for guessing, both for the LiteSpeed and the Varnish runs (how many cores, how much RAM allocated to cache, etc. etc.). They state that the dedicated server listed in a previous post could not be obtained, so they used a VDS, but aside from the GB of RAM (6), they did not give us other details like core count. And which version of LiteSpeed (how many cores?) they used.



    So after all that, I would say my offer for some REAL testing is still valid and on the table. As a static PHP page only represents a fraction of the content out there today.
    Brent Presley - brent@innoscale.net
    Innovative Scaling Technologies Inc. - Enterprise Cloud Hosting and Support
    24/7 Dedicated Support, Call us @ 1-888-722-8515
    www.innoscale.net - Ashburn - Dallas - Seattle - Amsterdam
      0 Not allowed!

  3. #108
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,568
    Quote Originally Posted by brentpresley View Post
    Furthermore, the testing was ONLY done by LiteSpeed staff. Not implying anything, but if you want the results to be viewed as fair and unbiased, they cannot be the ones doing the testing.
    The user who posted in that thread doesn't appear to work for LiteSpeed.
      0 Not allowed!

  4. #109
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by layer0 View Post
    The user who posted in that thread doesn't appear to work for LiteSpeed.
    Oh really?

    Since no 3rd party's have stepped up to the mark of doing this testing someone from Litespeed will kindly kick this public show off, Once the testing is underway am sure people will step up, Remember only trusted people will be allowed to undertake the testing.
    Brent Presley - brent@innoscale.net
    Innovative Scaling Technologies Inc. - Enterprise Cloud Hosting and Support
    24/7 Dedicated Support, Call us @ 1-888-722-8515
    www.innoscale.net - Ashburn - Dallas - Seattle - Amsterdam
      0 Not allowed!

  5. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by Farrukh View Post
    @mistwang, Thanks this helps a lot.

    One more question, my initial inquiry was about running a CMS, a PHP CMS which would serve dynamic pages. Which setup would be the best ?
    When access one URL, if all visitors get exactly the same content, using "public cache" policy is the best choice. if it shows slightly different content for different visitor, "private cache" policy can be used.
    Varnish use "private cache" only for dynamic page ( I maybe wrong on this though), LiteSpeed will be able to use either "private" or "public" cache, your choice.

    Usually, from end user point of view, visitors may not feel much difference when pages are served from cache, no matter it is varnish or litespeed, as long as it is cached.

    Again, you need consider other factors, not just software used, it does not necessarily guarantee you good service.
    LiteSpeed Web Server by http://www.litespeedtech.com
    Best PHP and Ruby On Rails hosting platform,
    Completely Apache interchangeable
    Compatible with all hosting control panels.
      0 Not allowed!

  6. #111
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Houston, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,875
    Quote Originally Posted by nerdie View Post
    The title of the thread: LiteSpeed VS Unixy Varnish - The Truth!

    That's a lie!

    Whoever is running that show did not benchmark our plugin.

    They downloaded the default VCL from the Varnish repository, which everyone knows is suboptimal at best, and slapped the "Unixy" tag on it. Run the benchmark against the UNIXy plugin and get me involved. See I'm personally not tied to any one Web server or technology. Our clients run just all sorts of configurations from one VPS to clusters. Yes, some even run Litespeed!

    I don't mind accepting the fact that Litespeed could possibly run faster (if it were to be proven). However, Litespeed Tech will never accept the fact that Varnish has performed faster. Someone in this forum ran benchmarks (a Litespeed Tech client mind you) and found Varnish to be 500 req/s faster than Litespeed Cache!

    You'd think Litespeed Tech would stop misleading people with these lies. You know it's easy to tell from the benchmark output that this is not UNIXy's plugin, right? But you have the SEO upper arm right now so sadly folks will keep being misled.

    Regards
    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
      0 Not allowed!

  7. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by UNIXy View Post
    I don't mind accepting the fact that Litespeed could possibly run faster (if it were to be proven).
    So, you do not mind taking a public shoot out between LiteSpeed and your Varnish plugin now.
    I have invited you before, unfortunately, you were not brave enough to answer it.
    http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showpo...&postcount=116

    The third party did apply a trial of your varnish plugin, our staff helped with LiteSpeed setup, that user run the "ab" tests himself and posted the results.

    We can use the VDS provided by Brent, or,I do not even mind doing it on your server/vps either, as long as third party can verify the setup.

    Quote Originally Posted by UNIXy View Post
    However, Litespeed Tech will never accept the fact that Varnish has performed faster. Someone in this forum ran benchmarks (a Litespeed Tech client mind you) and found Varnish to be 500 req/s faster than Litespeed Cache!
    Unfortunately, it is not easy to setup both correctly and have an apple to apple comparison and come up with the right conclusion. I hope a public shoot out will clear it up.

    BTW: that user is still using LiteSpeed.
    LiteSpeed Web Server by http://www.litespeedtech.com
    Best PHP and Ruby On Rails hosting platform,
    Completely Apache interchangeable
    Compatible with all hosting control panels.
      0 Not allowed!

  8. #113
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    467
    DO IT! DO A PUBLIC SHOOTOUT!
      0 Not allowed!

  9. #114
    Varnish is good, but Litespeed is better.
    Ryan C. | ComCraft Networks
    ComCraft Networks - Your Way To Host!
    Shared - VPS - Reseller - Dedicated - Semi-Dedicated - SEO - Minecraft - cPanel + Installatron and Softaculous - Colocation - Web Design - eCommerce - Live Support
    http://www.comcrafthosting.com/
      0 Not allowed!

  10. #115
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Houston, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,875
    Quote Originally Posted by mistwang View Post
    So, you do not mind taking a public shoot out between LiteSpeed and your Varnish plugin now.
    Answer my question first and I'll be happy to help out with the benchmark. If you're not benchmarking the Unixy plugin on your forum, then why is it labeled as such? Change the title in your forum to reflect the fact that this is not unixy's plugin and we'll talk. Fair enough?

    Quote Originally Posted by mistwang View Post
    The third party did apply a trial of your varnish plugin, our staff helped with LiteSpeed setup, that user run the "ab" tests himself and posted the results.
    You know how I know this is not unixy's? Check the server header on Varnish. It seems like your "third party" has dropped the ball somewhere. Here's another tidbit for you (from Litespeed's forum):

    Server Software: LiteSpeed
    Document Length: 34243 bytes

    Server Software: Varnish
    Document Length: 39265 bytes

    Why are you making Varnish serve a larger document? That's about 5000 bytes more. As small as 5000Bytes is, it matters quite a lot in benchmarks. Before you blame it on Varnish, go check our benchmark results, both Varnish/Litespeed serve the same document length. Why so many red flags?

    Quote Originally Posted by mistwang View Post
    BTW: that user is still using LiteSpeed.
    Yes and I know exactly why that user is still using litespeed. Contrary to what you're insinuating, performance is not the reason ). I can't go over the details but the user started using the very early beta release of the plugin so little bugs are bound to crop up.
    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
      0 Not allowed!

  11. #116
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    In the Internets
    Posts
    3,383
    Quote Originally Posted by UNIXy View Post
    Answer my question first and I'll be happy to help out with the benchmark. If you're not benchmarking the Unixy plugin on your forum, then why is it labeled as such? Change the title in your forum to reflect the fact that this is not unixy's plugin and we'll talk. Fair enough?



    You know how I know this is not unixy's? Check the server header on Varnish. It seems like your "third party" has dropped the ball somewhere. Here's another tidbit for you (from Litespeed's forum):

    Server Software: LiteSpeed
    Document Length: 34243 bytes

    Server Software: Varnish
    Document Length: 39265 bytes

    Why are you making Varnish serve a larger document? That's about 5000 bytes more. As small as 5000Bytes is, it matters quite a lot in benchmarks. Before you blame it on Varnish, go check our benchmark results, both Varnish/Litespeed serve the same document length. Why so many red flags?



    Yes and I know exactly why that user is still using litespeed. Contrary to what you're insinuating, performance is not the reason ). I can't go over the details but the user started using the very early beta release of the plugin so little bugs are bound to crop up.
    If you look at the post, you'll realize it wasn't him that did this test so you're ranting for no reason and looking stupid, imo.
      0 Not allowed!

  12. #117
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    1,080
    Quote Originally Posted by UNIXy View Post
    The title of the thread: LiteSpeed VS Unixy Varnish - The Truth!

    That's a lie!

    Whoever is running that show did not benchmark our plugin.

    They downloaded the default VCL from the Varnish repository, which everyone knows is suboptimal at best, and slapped the "Unixy" tag on it. Run the benchmark against the UNIXy plugin and get me involved. See I'm personally not tied to any one Web server or technology. Our clients run just all sorts of configurations from one VPS to clusters. Yes, some even run Litespeed!

    I don't mind accepting the fact that Litespeed could possibly run faster (if it were to be proven). However, Litespeed Tech will never accept the fact that Varnish has performed faster. Someone in this forum ran benchmarks (a Litespeed Tech client mind you) and found Varnish to be 500 req/s faster than Litespeed Cache!

    You'd think Litespeed Tech would stop misleading people with these lies. You know it's easy to tell from the benchmark output that this is not UNIXy's plugin, right? But you have the SEO upper arm right now so sadly folks will keep being misled.

    Regards
    We've used NGINX on all our servers for the past 6 months and are slowly migrating over to the UNIXY Varnish plugin. We operate our own hardware, so placing an additional 8GB of ram in our servers for caching is no problem. I've found that running the UNIXY Varnish plugin the load has always stayed under .5 (while memory is high, but that's not a problem). Previously, load spikes would incur anywhere from 3-10.

    Not to mention, it handles DDoS and any sort of floods much better than NGINX ever did for us. We use used Litespeed temporarily, poor results - it simply wasn't worth the money at all.
    VPSFuze.com - Performance should be noticeable - VPS Hosting at its best.
    HostingFuze.com - Affordable & Reliable Shared & Master Reseller hosting services
      0 Not allowed!

  13. #118
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    492
    So it sounds like UNIXy is onboard with an observed testing on our VDS.

    mistwang, you going to take the challenge?



    If mistwang says yes, I will need someone to provide websites that can be used for testing (no DNS changes needed, just a copy of some representative content of modern-day websites).
    Brent Presley - brent@innoscale.net
    Innovative Scaling Technologies Inc. - Enterprise Cloud Hosting and Support
    24/7 Dedicated Support, Call us @ 1-888-722-8515
    www.innoscale.net - Ashburn - Dallas - Seattle - Amsterdam
      0 Not allowed!

  14. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by brentpresley View Post
    So it sounds like UNIXy is onboard with an observed testing on our VDS.

    mistwang, you going to take the challenge?
    Yes, absolutely.
    LiteSpeed Web Server by http://www.litespeedtech.com
    Best PHP and Ruby On Rails hosting platform,
    Completely Apache interchangeable
    Compatible with all hosting control panels.
      0 Not allowed!

  15. #120
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Cheshire, UK & WA, USA
    Posts
    197
    Guys,

    I'll be setting the VDS up on one of our test grids. I think we need the community to decide the "rules" of the tests and we can then go ahead and setup everything that is needed etc.

    This experiment will be quite interesting, but I full expect Varnish to accelerate in some areas and varnish in others. It'll still come down to which products suit each company / server best.
      0 Not allowed!

Page 8 of 18 FirstFirst ... 567891011 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. LiteSpeed or Varnish, or what configuration
    By Serverfruit-Kris in forum Hosting Security and Technology
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-13-2011, 11:13 AM
  2. Varnish VS Litespeed?
    By Dustin Cisneros in forum Hosting Software and Control Panels
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 02-08-2011, 01:45 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-08-2010, 05:13 PM
  4. LiteSpeed Vs Apache?
    By leanfarrell in forum Hosting Security and Technology
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-06-2009, 03:25 PM
  5. LiteSpeed Web Server vs. Apache 2x
    By Ivan23 in forum Hosting Software and Control Panels
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-12-2005, 10:07 AM

Related Posts from theWHIR.com

Posting Permissions

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