New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
I don't think you will feel any difference unless you are talking about some massive traffic. Personally, I think either works fine.
There's not going to be any noticeable difference. If you want it easy and don't want to spend the time configuring/optimizing Nginx then go with OLS.
I'd roll Nginx as it's what I'm more familiar with.
To be honest, I'd bet you could get faster load times by optimizing payload sizes rather than trying to squeeze a bit more via configuration/optimizing of Nginx/OLS.
TL;DR flip a coin and just go with it.
Just go with Ngnix, I do see community or google can help you with a lot of tweaks.
Try serverless ?
PLOT TWIST: you could use a CDN.
Earlier I was using free Cloudflare CDN, but Google was not happy because the average load time was 30-50s. After I stopped using CF, the average load time came down to 4-6s.
Thank you everyone for suggestions.
openlite + cloudflare , rocket speed
Openlitespeed is prem
Uhm, I'm not talking about Cloudflare CDN that people generally used, its serverless (Service Worker by Cloudflare) just like Amazon Lambda. Been using it as experiment with static sites, and its just load fassstt my man. Blog post
Or on Amazon S3, etc.
Or a different CDN...not sure what Cloudflare promises, but was thinking more like @BunnySpeed's BunnyCDN or one of its innumerable competitors.
File sizes, number of files (on disk ~ size of set), storage medium (e.g. NVMe vs. spindles), and req/s are the decisive factors along with the caching capabilities of the http(s) software used.
If most requests end in serving multiple files (as is often the case) going http/2 will probably enhance performance (as perceived by clients) more than OLS vs. nginx or fine tuning their config to squeeze out the last bit of performance.
If latency is of concern -and- you are serving a not too large region not using a CDN will probably be better.
I will try Cloudflare worker. Thanks for the information. I was not aware of it.
You could use Github Pages or Netlify for static pages.
OpenLiteSpeed doesn't require much configuration. It also includes LSCache. If you don't want to tweak your installation afterwards go with OLS.
+1 Nginx.
From my experience, and using HTTP/2, H2O is the fastest for static files, then Nginx. However, for some reasons, all benchmarks / tests I see, are giving H2O behind. I don't know why. The best is always to test yourself , and see what works best in your case.
I would try Nignx with pre-compressed static files.
+1 nginx pre-compressed static files is much faster for better throughput and latency response times
Throughput versus latency. h2o due to more mature HTTP/2 prioritization implementation (like cloudflare's HTTP/2 prioritization) will make pages render/load faster for visible content. But h2o like caddy in terms of throughput/scale falls behind compared to likes of nginx and openlitespeed/litespeed . h2o and caddy will degrade further in terms of throughput scale the more HTTP headers you add to HTTP responses compared to nginx and openlitespeed/litespeed as well.
You can read up on HTTP/2 prioritization at
Had one Cloudflare user ask about HTTP/2 prioritization in Cloudflare and the steps I went through might be of interest to folks here too https://community.cloudflare.com/t/h-2-image-resource-prioritisation-seemingly-not-working/132120
Try yourself and find which is the best according to your needs and your expertise..
OLS compatible with Apache .htaccess, while Nginx has different approach... I by myself would recommend Nginx, cuz I familiar with it... So, choose your own choice.