XenForo LiteSpeed Cache [Deleted]

TheBigK said:
Thanks. That addon is unsupported, unfortunately. I'm guessing for a site under traffic spike; it might just result into issues. Surprisingly; I've enabled BD cache and the number of online users isn't affected by that addon.

I'm not sure how both are technically different - but I guess they work similarly by serving all the pages straight from the HDD.
Click to expand...

Not quite,

This addon caches the fully rendered page and re-displays it when its requested again.
 
Slavik said:
Not quite,
This addon caches the fully rendered page and re-displays it when its requested again.
Click to expand...
True; but is there a chance that it could affect the number of guests?

Isn't it true that the number of online user works by checking how many times PHP script is loaded? If that's true - if a page is served directly from the cache; it won't get 'executed' on the server. That would mean the number of online users; with 1 hour of session cookie; would be affected.

...and that's exactly what I experienced. Even under the traffic spike; the number of online users remained steady at about 800.

Can this be a configuration problem?
 
It seems a bit hit and miss actually, as other sites dont seem to have this issue,

Are you using any opcode caches?
 
I think @TheBigK is right!

Since litespeed returns the page BEFORE any xenforo code is beeing called & executed, it won't create & count the guest session.
tbh, why would anybody want this?:D IMO the huge performance boost is more worth then the useless xenforo user statistics;)
 
ExtraLicense said:
I think @TheBigK is right!

Since litespeed returns the page BEFORE any xenforo code is beeing called & executed, it won't create & count the guest session.
tbh, why would anybody want this?:D IMO the huge performance boost is more worth then the useless xenforo user statistics;)
Click to expand...
Sometimes, you've to do it for the sake of people. I admit; LiteSpeed cache gives quite an awesome performance boost. :)
 
lsmichael said:
Why are Crazy Engineers people so into the number of users on the forum? Curious...
Click to expand...
Not all of them; just few of our authors :) . We happen to be in Google News and writing a breaking news drives a ton of traffic to the site. They aim for cracking the 6500 online users count; beyond which our server often breaks down.
 
TheBigK said:
Not all of them; just few of our authors :) . We happen to be in Google News and writing a breaking news drives a ton of traffic to the site. They aim for cracking the 6500 online users count; beyond which our server often breaks down.
Click to expand...

Your server breaks down? Why? Too much MySQL? Anything LSWS can help with?

And I agree with @ExtraLicense I'd take the performance over an accurate user count. But I'm not a forum owner...
 
lsmichael said:
Your server breaks down? Why? Too much MySQL? Anything LSWS can help with?

And I agree with @ExtraLicense I'd take the performance over an accurate user count. But I'm not a forum owner...
Click to expand...
First it was MySQL; then it was PHP memory issue. Can LiteSpeed help with that? How about enabling cache?

We'll have to check how it works when we get the next traffic spike.

PS: I already said; as an administrator, I'd prefer the server to keep running no matter what the online user count is. I can fake that count; but few of our authors judge their own performance based on the online user count. Nothing too serious about it ;)
 
I used To place Random number generator code so it looked like videos on my old site had tons of views. A bit harder to do when I try and say I had 100,000 views and then have 15 forum members lol!!
 
guys - could i just do this part in regular ol' ftp?

mkdir /tmp/diskcache
chown nobody:nobody /tmp/diskcache
chmod 777 /tmp/diskcache

putty is giving me a nightmare. it's all top secret looking and i'll end up breaking something lol one of those things i'll play with on a small site i don't care about...
 
  • Like
Reactions: rdn
drastic said:
guys - could i just do this part in regular ol' ftp?

mkdir /tmp/diskcache
chown nobody:nobody /tmp/diskcache
chmod 777 /tmp/diskcache

putty is giving me a nightmare. it's all top secret looking and i'll end up breaking something lol one of those things i'll play with on a small site i don't care about...
Click to expand...
ssh using putty.
 
i know. i suck at putty tho. for me it's a black screen and i'm looking at it like wtf do i do next.

this is a live site with some decent traffic coming in, so i'll toy around with it on my other sites.
 
TheBigK said:
Well, pricing is one of the criteria. My server has 8GB RAM and I'm using Ultra VPS Lease LSWS Enterprise license. I'll be spending $26/mo; as I hear that it's totally worth it.

Do you think I should go for it?
Click to expand...
I also did some homework, and I don't think it's worth the price for a board your size (similar to mine). The LSCache has a benefit to larger forums, with millions of posts and heavy duty in terms of users (especially guests). In my opinion, LSCache has nothing better to offer than [bd]cache (an add-on from xfrocks) for small/medium forums.
 
Moshe1010 said:
I also did some homework, and I don't think it's worth the price for a board your size (similar to mine). The LSCache has a benefit to larger forums, with millions of posts and heavy duty in terms of users (especially guests). In my opinion, LSCache has nothing better to offer than [bd]cache (an add-on from xfrocks) for small/medium forums.
Click to expand...
I had a discussion with xfrocks and also with the LiteSpeed folks. It turns out that both the addons are a bit different in their function. I already have BD cache turned on, but I can tell you that the loading speeds are blazing fast with LiteSpeed Cache turned on (along with Slavik's addon).

However, as I mentioned - we ran into a problem where the authors demanded that the count of online users should vary linearly with the incoming traffic and we couldn't get that fixed. Second thing - several users reported that they were shown 'logged in' on few of the pages while they had logged out already.

I've decided to disable the addon for some time and revisit it in future to see if it can help.
 
TheBigK said:
I had a discussion with xfrocks and also with the LiteSpeed folks. It turns out that both the addons are a bit different in their function. I already have BD cache turned on, but I can tell you that the loading speeds are blazing fast with LiteSpeed Cache turned on (along with Slavik's addon).

However, as I mentioned - we ran into a problem where the authors demanded that the count of online users should vary linearly with the incoming traffic and we couldn't get that fixed. Second thing - several users reported that they were shown 'logged in' on few of the pages while they had logged out already.

I've decided to disable the addon for some time and revisit it in future to see if it can help.
Click to expand...
Was the problem in the current add-on or LSCache overall?
Wait for LS 5.0, it would support SPDY 3.1, then it would be faster anyway without cache :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Michael A.
LiteSpeed Cache for XF2 - Community
18 19 20
Replies
392
Views
31K
El Porcharo
El Porcharo
DRE
KnownHost Server Configuration?
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
21K
craigiri
craigiri
Top Bottom