Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 131
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,171
    I rather upgrade the memory at $25/month, it'll take me more than 32 months before I can start saving. And by that time, prices for servers would've gone down by a lot.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,574
    Take a look at competing web servers (and again these are not Apache compatible), i.e. www.zeus.com. You won't like their pricing

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,149
    Quote Originally Posted by layer0 View Post
    Take a look at competing web servers (and again these are not Apache compatible), i.e. www.zeus.com. You won't like their pricing
    True, but then again Apache does great for reliablity and Lighttpd/Nginx does great for static serving.
    Indeed they don't have the compatibility and ease of use (lighty/nginx) but with some tweaking and configurations they can work well enough.

    Of course, I've never used LiteSpeed (installer failed to install PHP, gave up on trial).

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Goleta, CA
    Posts
    5,550
    I don't think it's expensive at all. An enterprise customer which is what they're targeting wouldn't sweat dropping a couple grand on it.
    Patron: I'd like my free lunch please.
    Cafe Manager: Free lunch? Did you read the fine print stating it was an April Fool's joke.
    Patron: I read the same way I listen, I ignore the parts I don't agree with. I'm suing you for false advertising.
    Cafe Owner: Is our lawyer still working pro bono?

  5. #30
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    7,197
    Quote Originally Posted by cywkevin View Post
    I don't think it's expensive at all. An enterprise customer which is what they're targeting wouldn't sweat dropping a couple grand on it.
    Exactly. In the end, it really depends on what you're trying to do.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,257
    Quote Originally Posted by tsj5j View Post
    $799 for a dual core? You can buy another dual core machine with that.
    For us at least, we don't want more servers. There are a lot more "costs" with more servers. The biggest one being more management headaches. So while this product is expensive, it avoids a lot of other costs.

    Frank
    Umbra Hosting
    cPanel | Softaculous | CloudLinux | R1Soft | Ksplice
    Web Hosting, Reseller Hosting, VPS, Dedicated Servers, Colocation
    UmbraHosting.com

  7. #32
    One other thing to consider with supposed high costs is how much time is saved using Litespeed. Personally, I save muchos muchos time with easy configuration and lack of slowdown and downtime.

    How much do you charge an hour? Well, my time is not cheap and nor is downtime. Throwing hardware at a problem is not a solution (IMHO), it is averting the problem for a while.

    All I can say is try it before casting it aside - give a real go and you may be surprised. I know I was and every server and VPS I have now uses Litespeed.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,398
    Guys I would almost bet money that a single dual core server running litespeed would smoke and handle about 2 times or more traffic then a dual dual core setup running apache.

    That would be an interesting test there, Ive seen apache fork bomb on them quad core servers with much less then Ive seen litespeed handle on my core2duo

    But to the ones who havent tried it you should, you will trip, trust me

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    188
    How hard was the install? I saw you discussing the .htaccess rules... how many rules did actually have to change. A lot of our sites use .htaccess.... do most rules work?

  10. #35
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,398
    I just had to change some redirect rules, its real easy to install. Everything else on htaccess it reads fine

  11. #36
    Personally I've not had to change any .htaccess rules when transferring sites from apache hosting.

    What I have had to do is adjust some slightly if I used the rewrite config tab located in the Litespeed Admin Gui.

    In case that sounds confusing, LS can use existing .htaccess rules and is generally accepting of existing mod_rewrite rules (but as mentioned, you may have to do some tweaking) or you can create a new set within the gui (which is parsed quicker than using an existing .htaccess rule set).

    The rewrite engine is based on mod_rewrite and is designed to be as compatible as possible.

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,574
    Quote Originally Posted by SecureServerTech View Post
    Guys I would almost bet money that a single dual core server running litespeed would smoke and handle about 2 times or more traffic then a dual dual core setup running apache.

    That would be an interesting test there, Ive seen apache fork bomb on them quad core servers with much less then Ive seen litespeed handle on my core2duo

    But to the ones who havent tried it you should, you will trip, trust me
    I agree 100%.
    MediaLayer, LLC - www.medialayer.com Learn how we can make your website load faster, translating to better conversion rates for your business!
    The pioneers of optimized web hosting, featuring LiteSpeed Web Server & SSD Storage - Celebrating 10 Years in Business

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    188
    So you all think the investment is worth it? I might try it out on one of my box's

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Bay Area
    Posts
    1,320
    That completely depends on your setup. If you are serving sets of 50 sites off $39 celeron boxes, then it might not fit well in your budget for example.

    The only way to find out if it would be worth it, would be to run tests with a trial to see how much more performance you can expect. Then calculate how much the license would be per month (license fee / server lifetime) and see if the ratio is positive.

    If the price increases with a higher percentage than the performance increase, then no, it wont be worth it. If the performance increase is higher than the price increase..go for it

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    188
    I wish I had heard about it earlier because I have some really powerful servers that the apache load was just destroying. Some of it was due to the mySQL but now I have four servers to handle the load of the original one. I think it probably would have been cheaper haha.

  16. #41
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Xandrios View Post
    That completely depends on your setup. If you are serving sets of 50 sites off $39 celeron boxes, then it might not fit well in your budget for example.

    The only way to find out if it would be worth it, would be to run tests with a trial to see how much more performance you can expect. Then calculate how much the license would be per month (license fee / server lifetime) and see if the ratio is positive.

    If the price increases with a higher percentage than the performance increase, then no, it wont be worth it. If the performance increase is higher than the price increase..go for it
    heh I figured it up and its been about 2 fold for me saving money on hardware. I just consolidated 2 boxes that were always under hi load onto the litespeed box serving all sites and never even hitting 1 on load.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    3,078
    We have used litespeed on a few servers and have had excellent results with it as well.
    John W, CISSP, C|EH
    MS Information Security and Assurance
    ITEagleEye.com - Server Administration and Security
    Yawig.com - Managed VPS and Dedicated Servers with VIP Service

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    127.0.0.1
    Posts
    285
    We're also testing LightSpeed Enterprise on our test rack. The speed difference is amazing. Regular sites are served much faster, the load is down, and SSL requests are processed more efficiently.
    Kevhosting.com -
    High quality hosting, resellers and VPS packages.

  19. #44
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    142

    How compatible is it with Apache 2.2

    One of the reasons why I have avoided Cpanel is the absence of Apache 2.2, and coupled with a lot of custom compilations I have avoided Cpanel.

    Does it integrate well with Apache 2 based installations, as someone obsessed with custom setups it really matters to me.

    If it will integrate well with Cpanel that will be great for me.

    - voipfc


  20. #45
    voipfc:

    There is a wiki page at Litespeed regarding cpanel integration: http://www.litespeedtech.com/support...:apache:cpanel

    This may answer some of your questions. There are also a few posts in the forum but most issues were resolved very quickly.

    In summary - yes Litespeed supports cpanel but there may be some extra configuration to do.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    535
    ive just migrated my entire server to running on litespeed(albeit the free version, i dont have the users to warrent exorbitant fees for enterprise) and it is absolutly excellent,alot faster than apache and much less load

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,257
    I've also hear that there are some issues with cPanel V11 and adding domains but I don't have 100% of the details yet. I'm "guessing" it's because cPanel wants to hup/graceful apache and it's not there, but I have to do some more research.

    Frank
    Umbra Hosting
    cPanel | Softaculous | CloudLinux | R1Soft | Ksplice
    Web Hosting, Reseller Hosting, VPS, Dedicated Servers, Colocation
    UmbraHosting.com

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,574
    Quote Originally Posted by ffeingol View Post
    I've also hear that there are some issues with cPanel V11 and adding domains but I don't have 100% of the details yet. I'm "guessing" it's because cPanel wants to hup/graceful apache and it's not there, but I have to do some more research.

    Frank
    Yes, I believe that is the cause of the issue.

    You do not have to completely disable Apache, however, and could simply configure it to run on another port, and then configure "Port Offset" in LiteSpeed as needed.
    MediaLayer, LLC - www.medialayer.com Learn how we can make your website load faster, translating to better conversion rates for your business!
    The pioneers of optimized web hosting, featuring LiteSpeed Web Server & SSD Storage - Celebrating 10 Years in Business

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,257
    or simply supply your own apachectl script where the stop/start/restart/graceful functions simply do "nothing" and then cpanel will "think" it's done it's work.

    Frank
    Umbra Hosting
    cPanel | Softaculous | CloudLinux | R1Soft | Ksplice
    Web Hosting, Reseller Hosting, VPS, Dedicated Servers, Colocation
    UmbraHosting.com

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    10,574
    Quote Originally Posted by ffeingol View Post
    or simply supply your own apachectl script where the stop/start/restart/graceful functions simply do "nothing" and then cpanel will "think" it's done it's work.

    Frank
    Not a bad idea - though if you wish to support SSI you'll have to have Apache in the backend anyway.
    MediaLayer, LLC - www.medialayer.com Learn how we can make your website load faster, translating to better conversion rates for your business!
    The pioneers of optimized web hosting, featuring LiteSpeed Web Server & SSD Storage - Celebrating 10 Years in Business

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

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
  •