Results 1 to 13 of 13
Thread: Litespeed Standard vs Apache
-
05-05-2008, 04:11 AM #1Over there
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Location
- LA, CA
- Posts
- 1,069
Litespeed Standard vs Apache
Just wondering how Litespeed Standard (free) edition compares to apache. Of course it's not as good as the paid version, but I'm wondering how the free version compares to Apache.
-
05-05-2008, 04:14 AM #2Custom Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Posts
- 2,602
Pretty much the same as Apache or worse, due to limitations and certain features not being available in the free version, it depends on the application you're using on it though.
-
05-05-2008, 04:18 AM #3Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Location
- United Kingdom
- Posts
- 3,476
I can see the point to upgrade to Litespeed? No really difference in speed. Simply better of to tweak the Apache properly.
Explore our outstanding VPS choices tailored to your budget, and we welcome reasonable offers.
VPS Price Match Guarantee on: All our range of DDOS protected XEN HVM VPS
== Contact us for any online solution development or managed / unmanaged vps hosting ==
-
05-05-2008, 04:21 AM #4Over there
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Location
- LA, CA
- Posts
- 1,069
Alright, thanks. Also, just a curious question...when they say they limit the concurrent connections to 150, does that mean only 150 people at a time can access the server?
-
05-05-2008, 07:29 AM #5Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
- Location
- Australia
- Posts
- 265
I did a simple benchmark a while ago on Litespeed standard vs Apache: http://thislab.com/2008/02/25/benchm...nd-plain-html/
In short: there is no significant performance difference.
Concurrent connections:
The number of authenticated "handshakes" between a client and/or server during any given time before all communications have been disconnected whether by force or by refusal.DevOps!
-
05-05-2008, 02:56 PM #6Over there
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Location
- LA, CA
- Posts
- 1,069
The number of authenticated "handshakes" between a client and/or server during any given time before all communications have been disconnected whether by force or by refusal.
What does that mean? I'm a newbie, so I really don't get that kind of....techy language.
-
05-05-2008, 06:52 PM #7Retired Moderator
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- San Francisco
- Posts
- 7,325
The standard (free) version of LiteSpeed isn't the best indicator of LiteSpeed's advantages. A more balanced benchmark would be using LiteSpeed Enterprise, which you did in fact mention.
To answer your question, I don't personally see LiteSpeed Standard as having too much potential real-world usage.
-
05-05-2008, 09:59 PM #8Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Posts
- 251
As it has already been pointed out in the comments of your blog, the benchmark is useless. First of all you are testing without the trailing forward slash so web server needs to do a 302 redirect first. Secondly, at just a bit more than 1 request per second you are pretty much testing the PHP performance rather than web server's performance.
Even in your static file test it clearly shows an async-IO based webserver (Litespeed) out performs Apache, which I assume is using prefork MPM.
And there is one more thing that you have failed to test -- memory usage. With high concurrency (ab -c50) you can very quickly find out that there are 50 instances of Apache httpd running at 10MB each, verses one single instance of Litespeed at 5-10MB. That's 50x more memory usage, where you can use for disk cache or MySQL cache or memcached to further improve your performance.
-
05-05-2008, 10:03 PM #9Disabled
- Join Date
- Jul 2006
- Location
- Detroit, MI
- Posts
- 1,962
-
05-06-2008, 03:19 AM #10Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2005
- Posts
- 2,203
Standard is limited to 150 connections, can't really do benchmarks with that.
-
05-06-2008, 08:55 PM #11Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Location
- Miami FL
- Posts
- 376
Even with the same performance. I would say Litespeed still better for VPS where the Memory is very limited ( assume you dont use more than 150 concurrent connection).
Apache uses too much Ram compare to LiteSpeed.
-
05-06-2008, 09:07 PM #12Over there
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Location
- LA, CA
- Posts
- 1,069
Alright, thanks. But I still don't understand what those concurrent connections mean...
-
05-07-2008, 12:17 AM #13Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Posts
- 251
Concurrent connection -- how many TCP connections that are currently in ESTABLISHED state between users' web browser (or proxy) to your web server. As HTTP is really a state-less protocol (if you don't look at persistent connections), a connection is hardly correlated to the number of "users online". Someone sends a request to retrieve a page, and after page is retrieved, the connection is closed (if there is no keep alive). In that case the connection count is 0, but someone is certainly online reading your page! Vice versa that someone can issue multiple connections requesting images together with the document, even though there is only one person online.
Real world example -- one of my Drupal site usually reports around 150-180 "users online" (i.e. unique sessions that were active over the last 15 minutes), however Lighttpd that it uses reports less than 40 connections. It will be even less if I haven't extend the HTTP Keep Alive to 30 seconds. Default keep alive for Apache is 15 seconds and for most busy sites it is reduced to 1-2 seconds to reduce the concurrent connections. How many "online users" can 150 concurrent connections support, when you have a sensible HTTP Keep Alive setting? A LOT (for the VPS anyway).