Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 2345678 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 126
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    649
    Quote Originally Posted by mohamoud View Post
    Who is Litespeed to tell me that porn "deteriorates human moral values". I wish them nothing other than failure. I hate it when people push there moral feeling on others. Companies like these don't go every far.
    Their assumption that they have the right to determine "morality" is the reason I will never purchase Litespeed, regardless of performance. That said, it doesn't have much to do with performance. You could, however, argue that a full benchmark of Litespeed is impossible, because one is disallowed from benchmarking its performance serving the majority of web traffic.
    [GB ≠ GiB] [MB ≠ MiB] [kB ≠ kiB] [1000 ≠ 1024] [Giga ≠ gram] [Mega ≠ milli] [Kelvin ≠ kilo] [Byte ≠ bit]
    There is no millibit. There is no gram-bit. There is no Kelvin-Byte.

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Sergej View Post
    Based on info from LS forum, it appears that the latest version has some kind of bug which randomly lets people download PHP files instead of executing them:
    http://www.litespeedtech.com/support...?t=3101&page=5

    And there hasn't been any releases after this bug report, not sure how serious is this, but I wouldn't want my php files to be downloaded.

    Btw twitter used Litespeed at some point, but if you check what server they are running now, it says "Hi".
    IN LSWS switching between versions is matter of seconds, so you can have few versions precompiled and just switch between them without any downtime.
    I'm currently using 4.0.6 version and I can say I'm happy with it, under DDOS my sites stay responsive which I couldn't say about Apache.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    5,510
    Quote Originally Posted by Bono_ View Post
    under DDOS my sites stay responsive which I couldn't say about Apache.
    Bingo. My staff is skilled in optimizing both Apache and LSWS. We've been able to handle 8000 requests per second on a LSWS server that was crawling when running Apache with < 200 requests.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    649
    IRCCo Jeff: Less extraordinary claims, and more evidence, please.
    [GB ≠ GiB] [MB ≠ MiB] [kB ≠ kiB] [1000 ≠ 1024] [Giga ≠ gram] [Mega ≠ milli] [Kelvin ≠ kilo] [Byte ≠ bit]
    There is no millibit. There is no gram-bit. There is no Kelvin-Byte.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    5,510
    Quote Originally Posted by petteyg359 View Post
    IRCCo Jeff: Less extraordinary claims, and more evidence, please.
    I'm not motivated enough to try to convince you to switch. If you don't want to believe it just carry on with Apache.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,249
    Quote Originally Posted by IRCCo Jeff View Post
    Bingo. My staff is skilled in optimizing both Apache and LSWS. We've been able to handle 8000 requests per second on a LSWS server that was crawling when running Apache with < 200 requests.
    I have crawled on apache with that many request and I have been able to handle 2 thousand with litespeed before it crawled... Although I was running a low end dedicated.
    Leader of the new anti sig spamming club.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    649
    Quote Originally Posted by IRCCo Jeff View Post
    I'm not motivated enough to try to convince you to switch. If you don't want to believe it just carry on with Apache.
    Okay, I get it. We're supposed to take it on "faith". No wonder the license disallows porn. It's a religious web server.
    [GB ≠ GiB] [MB ≠ MiB] [kB ≠ kiB] [1000 ≠ 1024] [Giga ≠ gram] [Mega ≠ milli] [Kelvin ≠ kilo] [Byte ≠ bit]
    There is no millibit. There is no gram-bit. There is no Kelvin-Byte.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    5,510
    Quote Originally Posted by darkeden View Post
    I have crawled on apache with that many request and I have been able to handle 2 thousand with litespeed before it crawled... Although I was running a low end dedicated.
    2000 is the hard limit if you don't tune it.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,171
    Quote Originally Posted by IRCCo Jeff View Post
    Bingo. My staff is skilled in optimizing both Apache and LSWS. We've been able to handle 8000 requests per second on a LSWS server that was crawling when running Apache with < 200 requests.
    Quote Originally Posted by petteyg359 View Post
    IRCCo Jeff: Less extraordinary claims, and more evidence, please.
    http://www.litespeedtech.com/support...9&postcount=16

    I suggest you read the entire thread.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    649
    That thread is evidence of nothing. Show me a benchmark.
    [GB ≠ GiB] [MB ≠ MiB] [kB ≠ kiB] [1000 ≠ 1024] [Giga ≠ gram] [Mega ≠ milli] [Kelvin ≠ kilo] [Byte ≠ bit]
    There is no millibit. There is no gram-bit. There is no Kelvin-Byte.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,171
    I think real world examples are more convincing than benchmarks. Are you saying that those people lied?

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    649
    I an example of somebody thinking that switching to another HTTP server is the answer to a DoS. I don't see any information on what he's actually serving. Plain HTML? PHP with LS SAPI? PHP through FastCGI with PHP-FPM, spawn-fcgi, or daemonize? Ruby through FastCGI? CGI through FastCGI? WSGI? SCGI? Was the DoS still occurring at the exact same level once LS was installed? Were any iptables or firewall stuff changed?

    In other words, useless for actually comparing performance.
    [GB ≠ GiB] [MB ≠ MiB] [kB ≠ kiB] [1000 ≠ 1024] [Giga ≠ gram] [Mega ≠ milli] [Kelvin ≠ kilo] [Byte ≠ bit]
    There is no millibit. There is no gram-bit. There is no Kelvin-Byte.

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by petteyg359 View Post
    Okay, I get it. We're supposed to take it on "faith". No wonder the license disallows porn. It's a religious web server.
    Please download LSWS trial which lasts for 14 days, tweak apache and try to beat LSWS in performance.
    Post your results and prove that thousands of users who pay for LSWS are actually idiots who cannot optimize Apache.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    EU
    Posts
    94
    Yeah the trial license is 2 core enterprise version.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,715
    Quote Originally Posted by Bono_ View Post
    Please download LSWS trial which lasts for 14 days, tweak apache and try to beat LSWS in performance.
    Post your results and prove that thousands of users who pay for LSWS are actually idiots who cannot optimize Apache.
    I'm not saying they're idiots by any stretch of the imagination, my only gripe about performance is that LiteSpeed base their benchmarks on the Prefork MPM which only really describes it's effectiveness to the exact group of people you just described. If LSWS works out superior for you, that's awesome - but it's not for everyone.

    Who knows, if we start selling a bunch of webhost packages (web hosting isn't our primary business market at the moment) I might wind up needing to switch. However for our current use, Apache's working reasonably well for us given that most of what it's serving is static content. Comparing Apache/Litespeed to lighttpd/nginx is apples-to-oranges, you're comparing full-featured serving platforms to very nice pieces of software that are unfortunately lacking in some features.

    Find below benchmarks that I messed around with, I do understand they're not definitive by any stretch of the imagination. I made no attempts to tune LiteSpeed at all, but then again our Apache 2.2 is hardly tuned either (more or less just Worker MPM and the other usual suspects). I also fully realize it's quite low bandwidth and low concurrency compared to where LSWS really shines, but this was the best I could manage without having the VPS I was running the benchmarks from run out of steam (numbers got higher on both, without the load going up on the server significantly).

    It shows that for my purposes (obviously not the same as everyone's), LSWS is not the obvious improvement everyone seems to make out it is:

    Code:
    Server Software:        Apache/2.2.11
    Server Port:            80
    
    Document Path:          /index.html
    Document Length:        834 bytes
    
    Concurrency Level:      100
    Time taken for tests:   0.859599 seconds
    Complete requests:      800
    Failed requests:        0
    Write errors:           0
    Total transferred:      931563 bytes
    HTML transferred:       668034 bytes
    Requests per second:    930.67 [#/sec] (mean)
    Time per request:       107.450 [ms] (mean)
    Time per request:       1.074 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
    Transfer rate:          1057.47 [Kbytes/sec] received
    
    Connection Times (ms)
                  min  mean[+/-sd] median   max
    Connect:       45   46   0.2     46      47
    Processing:    46   49   5.5     48      70
    Waiting:       46   49   5.3     47      69
    Total:         92   95   5.5     94     116
    
    Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
      50%     94
      66%     94
      75%     95
      80%     95
      90%    103
      95%    112
      98%    114
      99%    115
     100%    116 (longest request)
    
    
    Server Software:        LiteSpeed
    Server Port:            8088
    
    Document Path:          /index.html
    Document Length:        834 bytes
    
    Concurrency Level:      100
    Time taken for tests:   0.844408 seconds
    Complete requests:      800
    Failed requests:        0
    Write errors:           0
    Total transferred:      857600 bytes
    HTML transferred:       667200 bytes
    Requests per second:    947.41 [#/sec] (mean)
    Time per request:       105.551 [ms] (mean)
    Time per request:       1.056 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests)
    Transfer rate:          991.23 [Kbytes/sec] received
    
    Connection Times (ms)
                  min  mean[+/-sd] median   max
    Connect:       45   46   0.2     46      47
    Processing:    46   47   1.7     47      54
    Waiting:       46   47   1.4     47      54
    Total:         92   93   1.7     94     100
    
    Percentage of the requests served within a certain time (ms)
      50%     94
      66%     94
      75%     94
      80%     94
      90%     95
      95%     98
      98%     99
      99%    100
     100%    100 (longest request)
    Jamie @ Sabrienix
    Now with Mumble Hosting!

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 2345678 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. High Performance Litespeed Powered Hosting Resellers
    By jon-f in forum Reseller Hosting Offers
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-02-2009, 12:26 PM
  2. Secureservertech - High Performance Litespeed Hosting
    By jon-f in forum Shared Hosting Offers
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-01-2009, 05:20 PM
  3. High Performance Litespeed Hosting Solutions
    By jon-f in forum Shared Hosting Offers
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-08-2008, 04:29 AM
  4. High Performance Litespeed Powered Hosting
    By jon-f in forum Shared Hosting Offers
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-11-2008, 06:05 PM
  5. High Performance Cpanel/WHM Resellers | Litespeed Powered
    By jon-f in forum Reseller Hosting Offers
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-27-2007, 01:45 PM

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
  •