1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

LiteSpeed Web Server

Discussion in 'Server Configuration and Hosting' started by Claudio, Nov 16, 2011.

  1. Claudio

    Claudio Well-Known Member

    Has anyone have experience using LiteSpeed + cPanel?

    I´m looking for install it on my dedicate server but before that I want to hear positive feedback :)
  2. Forsaken

    Forsaken Well-Known Member

    Unless you're getting a multi core license, there isn't much reason to get LiteSpeed, as there are free offers that perform just as well.
  3. Deebs

    Deebs Well-Known Member

    Especially with nginx getting some serious funding to develop it :)
  4. Claudio

    Claudio Well-Known Member

    but they say that lighspeed web server is more faster than apache and also that I can obtain at least 50% more speed
  5. Forsaken

    Forsaken Well-Known Member

    With a multi core license, yes you can get more than 50% speed.

    However the cost outweighs the benefit if you're not a high traffic site, or aren't constantly DDoS'd.

    Nginx is a better solution if you're wanting something free (I think you can get 30-40% improvement, if not more).
  6. Claudio

    Claudio Well-Known Member

    I didn´t know Nginx, is it stable and secure?

    My knowledge about server is a little, but I know how install cpanel (its no so complicated xD )
    Nginx is easy to install? Can I use CentOS, cpanel and Nginx?
  7. gwinans

    gwinans Active Member

    Nginx is very stable, secure and quite easy to install.

    I believe there's an Nginx plugin for WHM, but I don't use control panels - don't quote me on that. Nginx works on any distro.
  8. Dan

    Dan Well-Known Member

    I believe there actually 2 cpanel/WHM plugins for nginx. This one is the one I have heard better things from :
  9. Shamil

    Shamil Well-Known Member

    LiteSpeed + LS Cache = pure win.
    Alfa1 likes this.
  10. Claudio

    Claudio Well-Known Member

    yes but litespeed cost too much mony and ngnix can do same work for free :)
  11. Shamil

    Shamil Well-Known Member

    I assume you mean with varnish cache?
  12. Claudio

    Claudio Well-Known Member

  13. Shamil

    Shamil Well-Known Member

    Tests were done using different hardware.
    What version of LiteSpeed was used, was it the latest version of LiteSpeed?
    It appears that the servers were into two different locations. The Nginx one was closer (observe the connection times)
    Why were document lengths different?

    To conclude, it looks like a pretty poor comparison to me, however - I really suggest you yourself do the benchmarking - each environment and setup is unique, and there's no telling what is better for you until your environment has been tested with both; so yes, same php.ini, flags, etc.
  14. gwinans

    gwinans Active Member

    It is a poor comparison, but you'd be hard-pressed to show that Nginx is slower by any significant value. If at all.

    LiteSpeed exists purely to extract cash from your wallet. The developers of LiteSpeed have a history of not addressing serious security concerns and they even refuse to run a real benchmark set again Nginx. Somewhere, deep down, they know LS would get trounced at worst, made to look less valuable at best.

    The cost of LS along is a HUGE negative point for them along with some really silly license limits and how those license limits are counted.

    5 Host license? 4 of those get eaten by one domain (www.domain.tld, domain.tld, https://domain.tld/, https://www.domain.tld/).

    You would be a fool to give LiteSpeed a second thought with options like Nginx around.

    It's a great product if you need support - but you pay quite a bit for that support. IIRC, they charge per incident. And it isn't cheap.
  15. Ghan_04

    Ghan_04 Active Member

    I run a server at WiredTree - they offer Litespeed as an upgrade to their standard cPanel VPS packages and I am very happy with it. Litespeed is a great webserver that allows me to host a lot more than I could otherwise. It uses next to no RAM compared to MySQL which leaves it free to cache a lot more indices. :)
    Alfa1 likes this.

Share This Page