Why SSL Is So Slow to Catch On................

Be careful interpreting linode stats with memory. Free -m at the CLI is more accurate. Longview shows MYSQL buffer cache and FPM as used, where the CLI shows exact allocation.
 
I nosed around the Longview app on my Linode console........................ holy crap! This cPanel install IS a bloated pig lol!! I had no idea it used so much of my resources!
To be fair cpanel has features that some web stacks don't which are server resource intensive like everything to do with email, spamassasin and if you enable it clamav anti-virus scanning etc - all essential stuff if you operate email MTA server (exim) locally on your server. But yes Nginx will use less resources that Apache in most cases.
 
Be careful interpreting linode stats with memory. Free -m at the CLI is more accurate. Longview shows MYSQL buffer cache and FPM as used, where the CLI shows exact allocation.
Well, I had noticed the memory use in Longview "never" went below 18%-20% when I had cPanel installed. Without it, free -m shows barely 3% used. That's huge! Of course, I didn't measure the free -m with cPanel before I deleted the last node, but will try to remember to do that on a future creation. I gotta say................ I'm having a great time learning the ins and outs of this stuff! I'll get to that Centmin mod before I'm through, too.
 
To be fair cpanel has features that some web stacks don't which are server resource intensive like everything to do with email, spamassasin and if you enable it clamav anti-virus scanning etc - all essential stuff if you operate email MTA server (exim) locally on your server. But yes Nginx will use less resources that Apache in most cases.
I joined your forums. Hoping to get this installed shortly.
 
What I find intriguing is using nginx in front of apache. Any of you all doing that?
Installing NGINX as a reverse proxy is pretty much useless, to be honest. Just use cloud flare, it does the same thing except gives you full CDN. NGINX as a reverse proxy does not solve the apache bloat. It resolves some aspects, but you may as well just use NGINX as the sole web server.

If light speed entered the market open source and remained as such, with a pro version the same as NGINX do, NGINX wouldn't have made it in the door. Lightspeed by itself as the web server would have killed apache... but they didn't, so NGINX is killing apache, year on year.
 
Lightspeed by itself as the web server would have killed apache... but they didn't, so NGINX is killing apache, year on year.
OpenLiteSpeed has many of the benefits of LiteSpeed... the main exceptions being that it won't ready the .htaccess, it can't be used (last I checked) with cPanel and it's .htaccess equivalent directives can be slightly different than what one is used to with Apache (you have to place them in the vhost definition).
The issue with them was they waited to late to actually come out with it. By the time they did nginx already had a BIG foot into the door and it was (and is) hard for them to wedge that door open.
I ran it for a while and it was OK, but I honestly preferred nginx.
 
One thing this thread made me realize is http2 wasn't working on my centos installs. Nor had I declared it in any of my recent configs. Just did a test with libressl and thats solved lol.
 
Back
Top Bottom