After being slightly dissatisfied with litespeeds performance(quicker than apache, but still using a lot of processing power under load)
i found out more about varnish (i had tried it but was concerned about it using all the ram in my VPS and dying) having found out that it uses a set amount of memory and then pages out to disk the old stuff i give it another whirl (because it's performance is amazing)
Varnish acts as a cache/accelerator, not as a full web server. This isn't really a fair comparison. You should compare it against using LiteSpeed Cache.
There's so much more that Varnish can offer. See... the default VCL that ships with stock Varnish is good but nowhere near optimal. But the Varnish folks give you all the language constructs you need for programming to further optimize it. You can imagine how much more performance you can get out from it by adjusting the VCL a bit more.
Remember, not all VCLs are created equal. When someone reports that Varnish is able to handle x requests / second. That always means you can almost certainly improve upon it. Litespeed's cache is not programmable (besides the few knobs it already comes with).
We've switched some clients over to a cPanel + Varnish based server and have noticed great results compared directly to Litespeed (which is our public offering).
We'll soon be discontinuing our Litespeed services and making the complete switch to Varnish. It's cheaper (free), has shown us performance benefits above what Litespeed (which is great) has been able to provide us, etc.
vpsBoard - An active resource for all things Virtual Private Servers. Tutorials, Guides, Offers and more!
Come join the conversation! 90,000 posts and growing daily! The fastest growing hosting forum around!