Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 45
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana USA
    Posts
    15,259
    Any host running Apache is going to fight for Apache where as any host running LiteSpeed is going to fight for LiteSpeed - that's like asking Host A if you should sign up with Host B and vice versa... The host wouldn't be running it if they didn't believe it could perform and do what they want it to do

    In the end, this probably isn't the best place to ask this kind of question for an unbiased and objective response
    Michael Denney - MDDHosting, LLC - Professional Hosting Solutions
    LiteSpeed Powered - Shared, Premium, Reseller, and VPS
    For high-end shared accounts ideal for business, check out our Premium offerings!
    http://www.mddhosting.com/ - Providing Quality Services since 2007

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Seminole, OK
    Posts
    1,561
    Considering Apache is a Open source web server it has the worlds support behind it. When 1 bugs pops up and another person solves it. Then apache patches it and its all done. With Paid webservers you get a bug and their developers have to solve it and patch it.

    Plus apache makes it cheaper for their clients
    Inode Hosting - Reliable Web Hosting for the right price.
    Shared & Reseller hosting featuring the industry leading cpanel
    99.9% Uptime Guarantee ,30 Day Money Back Guarantee ,24/7 Support
    Established since 2011

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana USA
    Posts
    15,259
    Quote Originally Posted by jcarney1987 View Post
    Considering Apache is a Open source web server it has the worlds support behind it. When 1 bugs pops up and another person solves it. Then apache patches it and its all done. With Paid webservers you get a bug and their developers have to solve it and patch it.
    Which in my experiences with LiteSpeed usually only takes a few minutes to an hour or two from the time that you report a bug until it's resolved and pushed into the latest build - I don't know that I've seen an update pushed out that fast with Apache so your argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense

    Of course I am seeing things from the "other side of the fence" but I speak having run Apache 1.3, 2.0. and 2.2 for years prior to running LiteSpeed so I do have knowledge of both systems
    Michael Denney - MDDHosting, LLC - Professional Hosting Solutions
    LiteSpeed Powered - Shared, Premium, Reseller, and VPS
    For high-end shared accounts ideal for business, check out our Premium offerings!
    http://www.mddhosting.com/ - Providing Quality Services since 2007

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Seminole, OK
    Posts
    1,561

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeDVB View Post
    Which in my experiences with LiteSpeed usually only takes a few minutes to an hour or two from the time that you report a bug until it's resolved and pushed into the latest build - I don't know that I've seen an update pushed out that fast with Apache so your argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense

    Of course I am seeing things from the "other side of the fence" but I speak having run Apache 1.3, 2.0. and 2.2 for years prior to running LiteSpeed so I do have knowledge of both systems

    Well I am not saying lightspeed is slow. If they have fast service then perhaps they get to work and get the patch out. But I've never used lightspeed. I personally just hate trying to get support from paid services just because they can make you wait forever. But opensource you can ask the world for support and it is more easily answered. But as I said before I have never used lightspeed and probably never will. So who knows the true capability.
    Inode Hosting - Reliable Web Hosting for the right price.
    Shared & Reseller hosting featuring the industry leading cpanel
    99.9% Uptime Guarantee ,30 Day Money Back Guarantee ,24/7 Support
    Established since 2011

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    EU - east side
    Posts
    21,913
    In the end, this probably isn't the best place to ask this kind of question for an unbiased and objective response
    Probably not the perfect place indeed, but do you know some that would be? I can't imagine any. Threads like this raise awareness, and that's definitely something gained.

    However we have upgraded our server to apache 2.x and it is nice yet it create a world of headaches for my self and my techs. Working well into the night to fix many messed up sites, but I guess thats what you have to expect when upgrading to a major version improvement.
    You're touching a serious issue there. Apache has a huge market share, yet hosts still took their time to upgrade to Apache 2. We can only imagine the significantly higher natural resistance to change to something like Litespeed.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana USA
    Posts
    15,259
    Quote Originally Posted by jcarney1987 View Post
    Well I am not saying lightspeed is slow. If they have fast service then perhaps they get to work and get the patch out. But I've never used lightspeed. I personally just hate trying to get support from paid services just because they can make you wait forever. But opensource you can ask the world for support and it is more easily answered. But as I said before I have never used lightspeed and probably never will.
    It certainly has it's place - as an example a server at another provider that I do some work for was running 200~300 loads (around 550 proxy accounts on the server) with Apache and FastCGI and as soon as it was switched to LiteSpeed the load dropped to 2~3 steady - RAM usage was cut in half and performance was greatly increased. I am very good at optimizing Apache and I have worked with it for years however the Proxy environment and the demands it put on Apache were too much for Apache to handle even heavily optimized on a *very strong* dual quad core node with HT raid10 and 24gb of ram A switch to LiteSpeed turned that all around and I could post up a video showing the huge differences but I'd rather Apache hosts stay on Apache which gives us LiteSpeed hosts more of an "Edge" and a smaller/tighter market

    Edit: That server with 550 accounts was consolidated down from 4 such similar servers to save costs and then was switched to LiteSpeed to allow the 1 server to handle the work that previously required 4 servers... For the price of around $32/month the provider cut out over $1500 worth of additional leased servers I did try to optimize Apache before switching to LSWS however the requests/second and the amount of connections was simply too high for Apache to handle reliably

    Quote Originally Posted by jcarney1987 View Post
    So who knows the true capability.
    I do, I've been running LiteSpeed for some time and as stated in my response to the first section of your post I quoted, I've seen it work wonders. It's not a miracle piece of software that will solve every problem and I won't say that it does everything better than Apache but I have used their support enough to know that when a bug or issue is reported it's fixed quickly and that it can and does handle as much as Apache 2.2 (heavily optimized) or more using 1/2 as much ram or less.
    Last edited by MikeDVB; 10-06-2009 at 01:46 PM.
    Michael Denney - MDDHosting, LLC - Professional Hosting Solutions
    LiteSpeed Powered - Shared, Premium, Reseller, and VPS
    For high-end shared accounts ideal for business, check out our Premium offerings!
    http://www.mddhosting.com/ - Providing Quality Services since 2007

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    5,510
    Quote Originally Posted by ServerOrigin View Post
    Support is always here, whereas, Litespeed goes out of business and now all of your customers are completely unsupported.
    In which case:

    1) Login to Cpanel
    2) Click on the Litespeed module
    3) Click "Switch to Apache"

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,412
    Quote Originally Posted by IRCCo Jeff View Post
    In which case:

    1) Login to Cpanel
    2) Click on the Litespeed module
    3) Click "Switch to Apache"
    Unless you run FreeBSD where that module breaks everything.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana USA
    Posts
    15,259
    Quote Originally Posted by ServerOrigin View Post
    Unless you run FreeBSD where that module breaks everything.
    I've never seen anybody show me how/why the "WHM Plugin" for LSWS breaks FreeBSD... It's a plugin for WHM that simply gives you access to a small LSWS control panel - how on earth would that "Break everything"?
    Michael Denney - MDDHosting, LLC - Professional Hosting Solutions
    LiteSpeed Powered - Shared, Premium, Reseller, and VPS
    For high-end shared accounts ideal for business, check out our Premium offerings!
    http://www.mddhosting.com/ - Providing Quality Services since 2007

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,412
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeDVB View Post
    I've never seen anybody show me how/why the "WHM Plugin" for LSWS breaks FreeBSD... It's a plugin for WHM that simply gives you access to a small LSWS control panel - how on earth would that "Break everything"?
    No idea. Only know the last time we used it, we had permission issues, broken configurations, messed up the conf files, and required several hours of repair. It's not the add-on, it's the add-on's installation method.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    55
    Hello,

    I have a question. Is LiteSpeed a modified version of Apache or it's written from zero by LiteSpeed Technologies?

    Please clarify.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,990
    Quote Originally Posted by robotwink View Post
    Hello,

    I have a question. Is LiteSpeed a modified version of Apache or it's written from zero by LiteSpeed Technologies?

    Please clarify.
    It will be best for you to direct this question to the developers of LiteSpeed directly.

  13. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeDVB View Post
    Any host running Apache is going to fight for Apache where as any host running LiteSpeed is going to fight for LiteSpeed - that's like asking Host A if you should sign up with Host B and vice versa... The host wouldn't be running it if they didn't believe it could perform and do what they want it to do

    In the end, this probably isn't the best place to ask this kind of question for an unbiased and objective response
    ok, 100% agree with this..

    As I said in my original post.. open source does matter - and both Apache and Litespeed have their benefits.. for anyone to claim that flat out one is better then the other and everyone should use one over the other isnt being objective (and yes, is being biased) - and in my opinion - hasnt considered all the variables..

    As I said previously, litespeed has certain advantages over apache - and specifically in certain scenarios.. but, apache also has its advantages - lets avoid all of this though - to break it down to what really matters - ie dollars.. apache can yield similar results to litespeed in the average, typical, non specialized or niche type of hosting environment - the only difference really is an increase in ram requirements.. and considering ram is cheap, typically not the limiting factor and easily scalable - it makes more sense, in most cases, to stick with the widely supported, open code and cheaper solution - especially when in most practical instances, the performance is the same and the overall costs (even including the higher ram overhead) - are significantly lower...

    litespeed is fantastic - I will admit, we were late to even try it compared to many of the early adopters - but, it will continue to be a niche offering - and nothing wrong with that.. and even die hard apache providers (which we are not for example) - will use it in certain scenarios and for specific reasons (ie where it flat out does a better job for a specific purpose vs apache - ie the proxy example you gave - but, honestly - proxy environments are quite niche to say the least) - having said all of this, there are very few instances where litespeed does a flat out better job then apache with some additional ram - and as such, what is the real purpose of using litespeed in those scenarios other then to cater to a niche market? (and dont get me wrong, as you stated, that on its own could be reason enough) - but, we should be careful with flat out statements of either apache or litespeed being the "best" solution - as this is clearly not the case in both cases...
    Last edited by cartika-andrew; 10-07-2009 at 02:33 AM.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    33
    Fantastic thread! A plethora of useful information. Just what I was looking for. Actually, I was just looking for an instance to use the word plethora ;-)

    Thanks everyone for the info.
    Alan

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by jcarney1987 View Post
    In my opinion Apache 2.2 is the best web server. It is stable and doesn't use much resources and seems to respond faster than IIS
    Apache 2.2 is slower then IIS 7.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-17-2009, 03:48 PM
  2. Tricks of shared hosts,how to be a shared hoster.
    By Libertes in forum Web Hosting
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-02-2008, 04:46 PM
  3. shared-hosts.com
    By Annex in forum Domain Name Offers
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-15-2007, 11:51 AM
  4. Shared hosts in NY/NJ
    By Cavalier in forum Web Hosting
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-07-2005, 09:29 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •