Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34
  1. #1

    Is LiteSpeed faster than Apache?

    I was visiting the "Web Hosting Offers" section of this forum and read this sentence in a thread "LiteSpeed is up to 9 times faster than Apache".

    So I want to know it is true and what is main difference between them.

  2. #2
    There is difference. But in any case you need to understand that diffrent web hosting accounts can be used for various purposes and that could be related to the price also. What kind of project you are running?

  3. #3
    From my experience, Yes, there is a difference when it comes to speed and I definitely noticed it. I don't know the specifics in what are the actual differences but I did see a pages load faster by approx. 50% when used with the W3TotalCache plugin.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    19,196
    Comparing the default configuration (i.e. out-of-the-box configuration) of Apache versus LiteSpeed you'll generally find the LiteSpeed is faster/more efficient. It is possible to optimize Apache to the point of being somewhat comparable to LiteSpeed but generally it's going to use a lot more RAM/CPU to make that happen and/or you'll be required to use some sort of caching.

    I wouldn't choose a provider over another based upon LiteSpeed versus Apache I don't think though.
    Michael Denney - MDDHosting.com - Proudly hosting more than 37,700 websites since 2007.
    Ultra-Fast Cloud Shared and Pay-By-Use Reseller Hosting Powered by LiteSpeed!
    cPanel • Free SSL • 100% Uptime SLA • 24/7 Support
    Class-leading support that responds in minutes, not days.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    352
    It depends on how you configure/optimise Apache, I'm using it in conjunction with varnish cache and it beats litespeed every time around (yes, I've bechmarked litespeed too).

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    19,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Henry wilson View Post
    Apache Web server is lagging behind Litespeed in terms of responsiveness and performance. Not by much though! But Apache runs circles around Litespeed, 95% faster to be exact.
    You just contradicted yourself, unless I'm misunderstanding.
    Quote Originally Posted by Henry wilson View Post
    Apache is free and open source. Litespeed is closed source.
    There is plenty of closed source software out there, that doesn't in and of itself make it bad.
    Quote Originally Posted by Henry wilson View Post
    Apache costs zip! Litespeed goes for $699/yr for a 4-CPU license.
    You don't need a 4-CPU license, you can operate a 1-CPU license if you wish even on a 16 core+ machine. Honestly the only benefit, imho, of going to a 2 core license is the caching feature that isn't enabled in a single core license. You can get it for $32/month (or less if you go yearly) which really isn't a lot per server.
    Quote Originally Posted by Henry wilson View Post
    Apache has ample and abundant documentation.
    LiteSpeed has documentation as well, but I will admit it's not as versatile. One of the major benefits of LiteSpeed is that it does what it's designed to do and it does it efficiently and quickly. Apache is more of a "jack of all trades" type of piece of software, imho.
    Quote Originally Posted by Henry wilson View Post
    The Apache Foundation is a not-for-profit corporation.
    Ok... and?
    Michael Denney - MDDHosting.com - Proudly hosting more than 37,700 websites since 2007.
    Ultra-Fast Cloud Shared and Pay-By-Use Reseller Hosting Powered by LiteSpeed!
    cPanel • Free SSL • 100% Uptime SLA • 24/7 Support
    Class-leading support that responds in minutes, not days.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Sofia, Bulgaria
    Posts
    39
    I agree that it all depends on how Apache is configured.

    A few months ago we did series of stress tests of Litespeed, putting it up for a test to see if its suitable for shared hosting environment and if the few tens of dollars per month per server are worth it. Result was.. well, pretty disappointing. Indeed Litespeed is fast, but its fast if you do compare default configs of say Apache 2.2 and latest Litespeed - Yes, Litespeed will win and it will be a significant difference. With our heavily modded Apache Litespeed did fall behind in some of the cases. It was faster on static content (but who uses static content nowadays?!) 60% of the times on initial page loading time. On a second and third loading of the page, when all was cached already, Litespeed was not faster than Apache! And 60% of the time means Apache was faster than LS 40% of the time..

    For non-static content LS was faster in initial loading of the site only 37% of the times which made Apache a pure winner.

    All tests were conducted on 3 very heavily loaded shared hosting servers. We measured loading speeds, server load and various different stuff. Just for the record, we measured loading times of each website on the server with Litespeed and with Apache ~10 times. That gave us a lot of data and the ability to compare averages. We then repeated the tests on a blank server with default Joomla serving for non static content. This time it all looked 50/50.. but then again, If you are going to pay for something, you'd like to see at least some performance increase, right?

    So to summerize - I think Litespeed is a good product and works out of the box. However, if you know what you're doing, you can avoid the bill for LiteSpeed and get the same or almost the same performance from Apache and be community supported, use the tons of Apache mods, etc.
    Last edited by 1hsoft; 06-03-2011 at 04:45 AM.
    www.1h.com
    We optimize your hosting business!

    Check the fastest proactive server monitoring: 1H Guardian

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Modesto California
    Posts
    6,858
    Oh no.. not another one of these threads! lol, before this thread gets carried away, with the whole litespeed vs apache debate. I would like to point out to Nancy that although Litespeed can run faster than a basic Apache configuration, unless you are running a dedicated environment or have specific compatibility issues with either of the two web servers, which web server your provider is actually running is pretty much irrelevant (at least in a shared environment it is).

    Litespeed can run faster than Apache and Apache can run faster than Litespeed. It really all just depends on not only what configurations are being used, but also the specs of the server, the data center and how many sites are being hosted on that particular server. Example, Apache + Varnish Cache, runs faster than Litespeed out of the box, but Litespeed out of the box runs faster than Apache out of the box. That of course is all based off of both servers having the same exact specs, with the same amount of websites, in the same data center. Catch my drift?

    In closing, if you are looking for the fastest shared web hosting service, the last thing you should be concerning your-self with is the web server. Instead, ask for speed tests, try to find out how many sites they have hosted on each server, what data center they are located in, hardware specs and average load of the server. All of that data combined should give you a pretty good idea regarding the level of service you can expect (in terms of speed). Hope that helps!
    Looking for an awesome VPS Offer? CLICK HERE

    "Knowing is not enough, we must apply. Willing is not enough, we must do." – Bruce Lee

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by SiberForum View Post
    There is difference. But in any case you need to understand that diffrent web hosting accounts can be used for various purposes and that could be related to the price also. What kind of project you are running?
    I am discussing regarding wordpress blogs which have approximate 3000-4000 per day traffic. I also use some wordpress plugins and due to this these use more cpu uses that create problem for web host.

  10. #10
    If you have single site on server, I would suggest use nginx.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,710
    Quote Originally Posted by 1hsoft View Post
    I agree that it all depends on how Apache is configured.

    A few months ago we did series of stress tests of Litespeed, putting it up for a test to see if its suitable for shared hosting environment and if the few tens of dollars per month per server are worth it. Result was.. well, pretty disappointing. Indeed Litespeed is fast, but its fast if you do compare default configs of say Apache 2.2 and latest Litespeed - Yes, Litespeed will win and it will be a significant difference. With our heavily modded Apache Litespeed did fall behind in some of the cases. It was faster on static content (but who uses static content nowadays?!) 60% of the times on initial page loading time. On a second and third loading of the page, when all was cached already, Litespeed was not faster than Apache! And 60% of the time means Apache was faster than LS 40% of the time..

    For non-static content LS was faster in initial loading of the site only 37% of the times which made Apache a pure winner.

    All tests were conducted on 3 very heavily loaded shared hosting servers. We measured loading speeds, server load and various different stuff. Just for the record, we measured loading times of each website on the server with Litespeed and with Apache ~10 times. That gave us a lot of data and the ability to compare averages. We then repeated the tests on a blank server with default Joomla serving for non static content. This time it all looked 50/50.. but then again, If you are going to pay for something, you'd like to see at least some performance increase, right?

    So to summerize - I think Litespeed is a good product and works out of the box. However, if you know what you're doing, you can avoid the bill for LiteSpeed and get the same or almost the same performance from Apache and be community supported, use the tons of Apache mods, etc.
    I have been trying to stay out of this thread, but it is sad to see everyone constantly comparing cached pages against LiteSpeed when this is obviously not a fair comparison by any means.

    Think about this for a second. Your cached page has now basically become a static object to the web server. You're comparing that to a web server that is actually physically generating a dynamic response each time. It doesn't take a genius to figure out which one is going to be faster there. Now, try using LiteSpeed Cache, or comparing dynamic vs dynamic, and you'll see the clear winner.

  12. #12
    For a php intensive site, I did testing with Apache and Cherokee (another light-weight server) both and found that a well tuned Apache with php accelerator gave better performance.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida, U.S
    Posts
    1,738
    Honestly, asking this is just like asking if AMD is faster than Intel.. It depends. What are the server specs and configuration? What kind of websites are being hosted? How many websites are being hosted? Does the host overload their servers? and so on..
    HOSTLEET.COM, LLC - Elite Website Hosting Since 2008!
    Fast Reliable Affordable Secure Friendly & Courteous
    RISK-FREE Money Back Guarantee U.S.A Based & Operated
    Read Through Our Most F.A.Q's!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    9,350
    Quote Originally Posted by HostLeet View Post
    Honestly, asking this is just like asking if AMD is faster than Intel.. It depends. What are the server specs and configuration? What kind of websites are being hosted? How many websites are being hosted? Does the host overload their servers? and so on..
    jajaja :p

    Nicely said .
    〓〓 RackNerd LLC - Introducing Infrastructure Stability
    〓〓 Dedicated Servers, Private Cloud, DRaaS, Colocation, VPS, DDoS Mitigation, Shared & Reseller Hosting
    〓〓 www.linkedin.com/in/dustincisneros/
    〓〓 My fancy email dustin@racknerd.com

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny D View Post
    It depends on how you configure/optimise Apache, I'm using it in conjunction with varnish cache and it beats litespeed every time around (yes, I've bechmarked litespeed too).
    Same here.

    Litespeed out of the box compared to Apache out of the box, Litespeed will win.

    Tweaked Apache VS Litespeed, it depends on what is done. With Varnish Cache, or own testing shows Apache+Varnish Cache beat Litespeed.

    Of course, this is something that has been going on forever. Which one is better, it really depends on who you ask. We were offering Litespeed services, but after a few months switched bac to Apache with Varnish Cache installed for the performance boost.

    Litespeed is working on a caching mechanism as well (Or maybe it's complete?), so perhaps that product is now up-to-par with Apache+Varnish.

    All in all, differences will be minimal at best between both products and both are worlds better than Apache in it's default state.
    [ IncogNET LLC ] Privacy By Design [Liberty Lake, WA][Kansas City, MO][Allentown, PA][Naaldwijk, NL]
    [ Web Hosting | KVM VPS | Dedicated Servers | Domain Names | VPN | Censorship Resistance ]
    Services provided in the United States and Netherlands with privacy and freedom of speech being our top priority.


  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    19,196
    Quote Originally Posted by layer0 View Post
    I have been trying to stay out of this thread, but it is sad to see everyone constantly comparing cached pages against LiteSpeed when this is obviously not a fair comparison by any means.

    Think about this for a second. Your cached page has now basically become a static object to the web server. You're comparing that to a web server that is actually physically generating a dynamic response each time. It doesn't take a genius to figure out which one is going to be faster there. Now, try using LiteSpeed Cache, or comparing dynamic vs dynamic, and you'll see the clear winner.
    I noticed that as well, people keep mentioning Apache+Varnish versus LiteSpeed. That in and of itself should tell you that LiteSpeed by itself is faster (otherwise, why would they need to throw caching into the mix on the Apache side to make the comparison?).
    Michael Denney - MDDHosting.com - Proudly hosting more than 37,700 websites since 2007.
    Ultra-Fast Cloud Shared and Pay-By-Use Reseller Hosting Powered by LiteSpeed!
    cPanel • Free SSL • 100% Uptime SLA • 24/7 Support
    Class-leading support that responds in minutes, not days.

  17. #17
    Litespeed is faster than Apache when using it on your OWN dedicated server. I doubt the end user will notice much difference in a Shared hosting environment as all providers will want to maximize their profits by putting as many accounts on the server as they can without the server overloading.

    When the server is near enough fully loaded like highish CPU/memory/disk io constantly the end user using Shared hosting account will not notice much difference with page load speeds for their websites.

    Quote Originally Posted by HostLeet View Post
    Honestly, asking this is just like asking if AMD is faster than Intel.. It depends. What are the server specs and configuration? What kind of websites are being hosted? How many websites are being hosted? Does the host overload their servers? and so on..
    Exactly.
    HostXNow - Shared Web Hosting | Semi Dedicated Hosting | Enterprise Reseller Hosting | VPS Hosting

  18. #18
    very valuable info here. I think you should have learned how to make the right choice. There're many ways to optimize a web server no matter what software you use.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by FernGullyGraphics View Post
    In closing, if you are looking for the fastest shared web hosting service, the last thing you should be concerning your-self with is the web server. Instead, ask for speed tests, try to find out how many sites they have hosted on each server, what data center they are located in, hardware specs and average load of the server. All of that data combined should give you a pretty good idea regarding the level of service you can expect (in terms of speed). Hope that helps!
    You shared very useful info in reply of my query. Thanks for it. However one more question associated with my query. If I ask for information about "how many sites they have hosted on each server" then will they give true answers? As they know why I am asking this, other info about data center and hardware they can give. Please share your experience with us by giving expert view on this query.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    394
    I have a few very heavy sites running on lamp. They were sluggish at best. Installed APC + mod_delfate & there's a HUGE improvement. Definitely comparable to a stock lightspeed.

    Is Varnish actually better than apc? How so?

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Modesto California
    Posts
    6,858
    Quote Originally Posted by nancysmith View Post
    You shared very useful info in reply of my query. Thanks for it. However one more question associated with my query. If I ask for information about "how many sites they have hosted on each server" then will they give true answers?
    It really all depends, but I think if you ask all of the following, you will lower the chances of the web host lying to you..

    - Approximately how many sites are hosted on the server my website will be hosted on?

    - What are the specs of the server I will be hosted on?

    - What is the average load of the server I will be hosted on?

    - Which data center is the server my website will be hosted on located?

    - Please provide me with an IP address for the server I will be hosted on so I can ping it.

    If the web-host you are inquiring about is hesitant or simply refuses to give you the above information, then you can almost certainly expect to be placed on an overcrowded server. I doubt most would lie (unless they are amateurs) as you would be able to tell immediately upon receiving your account information by monitoring the load of the server along with making sure the server specs you were given are accurate (this can be done within cpanel).
    Looking for an awesome VPS Offer? CLICK HERE

    "Knowing is not enough, we must apply. Willing is not enough, we must do." – Bruce Lee

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeDVB View Post
    I noticed that as well, people keep mentioning Apache+Varnish versus LiteSpeed. That in and of itself should tell you that LiteSpeed by itself is faster (otherwise, why would they need to throw caching into the mix on the Apache side to make the comparison?).
    As Apache + Varnish is a win, at least in my eyes - what about running LiteSpeed side by side with Varnish cache, or would that be redundant per the initial setup of Litespeed httpd?

  23. #23
    Thanks to all for your expert advice.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,710
    Quote Originally Posted by Henrik View Post
    As Apache + Varnish is a win, at least in my eyes - what about running LiteSpeed side by side with Varnish cache, or would that be redundant per the initial setup of Litespeed httpd?
    You can technically run Varnish in front of LiteSpeed (it's possible to run Varnish in front of almost any web server), however this isn't necessary given LiteSpeed has its own caching system (which was recently enhanced with private cache functionality) for any license above 2CPU's.

  25. #25
    Private cache functionality is to be able to control the caching of different user's files (UID)?

    But it does make me wonder if LiteSpeed is worth the price, when you can get similar functionality for free (or for a low cost using one of them varnish plugins out there).

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-21-2011, 07:05 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-26-2010, 05:40 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-25-2010, 01:53 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-08-2010, 05:13 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-17-2008, 11:18 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
  •