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.
Litespeed web server (drop in apache replacement)
To keep it short, does anyone has experience with it? Most thing on the googs are older than 6 months. Say you have 4 apache servers with complex rewrite rules, 50 tuby apps (rails/passenger) and about 130 php virtual hosts. (about 30.000 v/day) Servers are a bit struggling, and new hardware is not in budget. Would this help? (Especially the drop in apache vhosts and rewrite rules support is nice). Note that another webserver is not an option. also, not my situation but friend of mine asked me for advice on it.
Comments
Litespeed is actually another webserver.
nginx is better
It's supposed to be good but it costs money and has some weird ToS like not allowing porn sites to be hosted using the Litespeed webserver.
I used LiteSpeed for some time. It indeed reduces server load, but do not expect wonders. A well optimized Apache config came at least close to it. Not to talk about nginx, which does a GREAT job for free. However, LiteSpeed integrates WAY better when replacing an existing Apache installation with many htaccess rules.
Isnt lighhttpd an option?
I will never use Lightspeed until they change their TOS. I find it sick that they control what can and cannot be hosted on an individual's webserver, regardless if it's legal or not.
I've used both Litespeed VPS on a cPanel server and it was better in terms of performance than a stock Apache config. Later replaced it with Varnish Cache w/ Apache, and thought that was better for what I wanted.
Give it a shot, pretty sure Litespeed has a trial period for you to test it out. It's been a while since I've used it.
@kujoe we all love porn
Whats bothering even more is that porn isn't anything illegal.
And they indeed enforce that policy. I was forced to stop using LiteSpeed because I was hosting adult content. Well nginx does a great job, too...
I don't care what they prohibit hosting under their product, it's their choice to limit their clients. However, per core license? Not a chance. I'll keep that extra ms on my load time.
nginx + Apache is good enough for me and after the attack we had yesterday I am very confident in the setup.
This may be an alternative -- http://www.nginxcp.com
Main Features:
DDOS Protection : Nginx will only pass true http requests and protect against attacks like DDOS attacks.
WHM Plugin : Nginx Admin whm interface will help you to manage your nginx server from your WHM.
GZIP compression : Nginx Admin is compitable with GZIP compression.
cPanel service monitor support: Nginx will be auto restart when you restart apache, So no down time at all.
No WHM apache status issue.
No PHP rewrite issue.
Can manage which domain use Nginx and which domain use Apache via SSH.
We use http://cpnginx.com/, it's cheap and works perfectly. Saved us from a lot of downtime yesterday so it's already paid for itself.
@kujoe cpnginx vs nginxcp any difference?
How does it compare to the free version on http://nginxcp.com/ ?
Their image
Doesn't make any sense. Isn't cpnginx just a proxy on the regular apache?
Nginxcp has been a great addition to our shared server. It's no substitute for a solid configuration, but it has a good place in part of an overall apache optimization.
LiteSpeed is really awesome but "expensive". The Standard Version up to 150 concurrent and 1 CPU, just useless. U$300 is the lowest budget you must have to work with and nginxcp do the job till now, apparently. i use cpnginx before but only pays for support and easy plugin development, i cant say too much about it. Currently using CloudLinux + Apache mostly.
I don't know the difference between the paid and free one but I don't want to risk switching so I'll stick with the paid one.
@kujoe you sound like those paranoid corporate executives, I do not know if it is good or bad but I will stick with windows instead of Linux cause I pay foe it :P
Don't fix it if it ain't broken.
Unless its leaking a ton of oil and costing you a fortune to drive it.
The decision is between an untested free product that has a lengthy thread on cPanel's forums asking for support or a paid product we've been using for month that I only need 1 mid-sized client on my server to recoup the costs and I've only had to open 1 support ticket for. Seems simple enough. :P
Exactly.
Fare enough! Time to derail,
MySQL or postgress? Why yes why no?
I use litespeed as well inside cPanel, have not had any problems or complaints so far knock on wood
I wonder how they go about doing this...
Bleh, eff 'em. Just use lighttpd. Tweaking Apache is like putting lipstick on a pig, especially if they're using some obnoxious non-free license. So nice of them to fork an open source project and then turn around and tell you what you can do with your software.
I did a quick test between CPNginx and NginxCP using Blitz.io, here are the results:
5,165 successful hits, 9 errors, 52 timeouts
44.98 MB of data
The average hit rate of 82/second translates to about 7,129,151 hits/day
The average response time was 276 ms
1.17% of the users experienced timeouts or errors
The first error happened at 50.30 seconds into the test when the number of concurrent users was at 189.
The first timeout happened at 15.06 seconds into the test when the number of concurrent users was at 57.
>
5,125 successful hits, 11 errors, 58 timeouts
44.47 MB of data
The average hit rate of 81/second translates to about 7,061,030 hits/day
The average response time was 250 ms
1.33% of the users experienced timeouts or errors
The first error happened at 17.54 seconds into the test when the number of concurrent users was at 66.
The first timeout happened at 15.04 seconds into the test when the number of concurrent users was at 57.
>
1,353 successful hits, 0 errors, 471 timeouts
13.04 MB of data
The average hit rate of 21/second translates to about 1,818,002 hits/day
The average response time was 191 ms
34.83% of the users experienced timeouts or errors
0 errors
The first timeout happened at 15.04 seconds into the test when the number of concurrent users was at 57.
Keep in mind that I have CloudLinux setup with a limit of 50 connections along with a strict CSF config that could account for the errors and timeouts. One thing I did notice was that both versions have different configs so I probably should have used the same config for both plugins now that I think about it. NginxCP had more config settings but based on the test there wasn't much of a difference. Installation-wise, CPNginx was easiest to install/uninstall because NginxCP doesn't mention anything about the fixpython script (it's mentioned in the comments by a user luckily) and after uninstalling it Apache would not restart so my clients were offline for about 30 seconds while I fixed it. I liked CPNginx's interface more since it has more options and features although I don't use them very often.
I will be downloading the free trial for a Varnish plugin tonight to see if that fairs any better since I recently install Varnish on our webserver and fell in love with it.
That varnish cache is the bomb. Just male sure you have enough ram