LiteSpeed :: Binary Path Must Be Set Properly In Order Replace Apache
Apr 6, 2008
2008-04-06 08:52:32.597ERRORApache Binary Path must be set properly in order replace Apache, fall back to 'Reload on configuration file change'.
2008-04-06 08:52:32.602WARN[configerver:listener] No listener is available for normal virtual host!
2008-04-06 08:52:32.604ERROR[config:template:centralConfigLog] Listener [Default] does not exist
2008-04-06 08:52:32.605ERROR[config:templateHP_SuEXEC] Listener [Default] does not exist
2008-04-06 08:52:32.605ERROR[config:template:EasyRailsWithSuEXEC] Listener [Default] does not exist
2008-04-06 08:52:32.617WARNStandard Edition only support up to 5 Apache vhosts.
I did everything on the litespeed setup I was soppose to found at their wiki site. But still I recieve these errors, LiteSpeed works on my server because httpd is disabled and LiteSpeed is responding to request now.
I have vhost setup for test of a new website. I want to allow access on the localhost, and, from one IP from the Internet (redacted). Apache serves the site just fine on the server but I can't access the site from my the "xxx...." IP.
I'm using a physical path to test from the public IP as follows:
I have vhost setup for test of a new website. I want to allow access on the localhost, and, from one IP from the Internet (redacted). Apache serves the site just fine on the server but I can't access the site from my the "xxx...." IP.
I'm using a physical path to test from the public IP as follows:
Code: <VirtualHost *:80> ServerName test ServerAlias test DocumentRoot /home/user/public_html/test <IfModule mod_fcgid.c>
[Code] .....
I don't have a FQDN as yet, so I just made a entry in /etc/hosts as follows:
Code: 127.0.0.1 test
Here is an excerpt from the Apache error log:
Quote: [Mon Jun 17 12:02:16 2013] [error] [client xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx] client denied by server configuration: /home/user/public_html/test/index.html
I've checked the firewall and the /etc/hosts.allow- that's not it. I've read the Apache docs and in the vhost block Allow should be evaluated last, and apparently is matching localhost but is not matching my IP.
Anyone happen to know the difference between the two and whether or not I'll notice the difference between them?
For example, many, many, many, many moons ago, in a far away land, there used to be a difference between Windows and Linux for perl scripts. In fact, if you couldn't re-write half the script, some of them just didn't work right on a windows host.
Are there any differences like that between lightspeed and apache, or is it all pretty much the same and doesn't really matter?
I no longer have the funds for a LSWS lic, so I need to move to Apache. I run CPanel and need help in configuring Apache to be able to take 120 requests/sec and no crap out.
I've never worked with Apache since been using LiteSpeed for over 2 years, so I need some advice on how to set it up, compile, configure, ect...
I started a thread last night to get some opinions as I am trying to find a new host & now am coming up with another question... Apache vs Litespeed. A cpanel is important to me, which I am not sure is possible with Litespeed & a highly rated company that offers LS, Medialayer, doesn't offer phone support which is mandatory to me. Can't find many companies that offer Litespeed & everything else that I need.
So as not to repeat, please see the tread I started last night to get the gist of my needs. I also another opinion over there on Liquidweb. See:
We run a quite intensive web and found some performance tests about LiteSpeed Ent. Our site is Apache + PHP driven. Is it worth to pay for LiteSpeed Ent ? Is the performance increase really significant?
if there is any difference between apache & litespeed? Performance wise I know litespeed would be better. But in terms of configuration wise, compatitibility wise and some other factors, how different would it be for apache & litespeed?
My concern is if I were to change from apache to litespeed, would my webhosting customers know how to use it in 1 way or another? like permissions and stuff.
I know most webhosts run Apache and it seems to server their needs very well. However LiteSpeed is new and fast, assuming you have relatively static content. At least that's what I've heard. Beyond this, I don't know much, though a year ago I worked with a guy who hosted an iPhone software repository (smallish files, huge demand), and he put LiteSpeed on the servers to deal with the load. Running at 30+ Mbps, with spikes above 60, the server never went above 0.2 load as far as I remember, and it was just a 2GB Core 2 Duo E6300 1.86 GHz machine.
how Litespeed Standard (free) edition compares to apache. Of course it's not as good as the paid version, but I'm wondering how the free version compares to Apache.
According to the latest trend and technological advances, which server software should people go with from the very beginning. Which do you recommend as on today?
btw anybody has experience with all 3 (apache/nginx/litespeed) webservers?
I have -
On a common shared environment, I started off with Apache - was fine until some load started generating and it became crapache.
Then litespeed - Totally awesome, could seriously feel the difference, but its cost is something not everybody can afford.
Then nginx - Very nice, felt like litespeed only, the only difference was it got quite complex in configuring it at a later stage BUT its free'ness made me love it badly.
I am in the process of upgrading from apache 2.2.21 to apache 2.4.3. I'm using apache lounge's compiled 2.4.3 by the way. I'm working on a windows 7 SP1 64 bit workstation.
My old 2.2.21 was configured to use ssl with client pki authentication. When I configure 2.4.3 with the ssl options and move the CAs, private key and server certificate from my old 2.2.21 instance I get the following error.
(This is the first review I've ever written for practically anything so please bear with me. I feel the need to share my experience to try to help others after all the great advice and info I've received around here.)
If you've done everything you think you can do to improve the responsiveness of your websites like add a mysql cache, PHP opcode cache and various other tweaks, I discovered there is still one more easy thing you can do for a big improvement: replace Apache with LiteSpeed. It's way too easy not to try it and you can leave Apache completely intact to go back to at a moment's notice if you so desire.
I call LiteSpeed a "drop-in" replacement because it uses all my httpd.conf and .htaccess settings without modification. This was critical for me as my sites have some very complex rewrite rules. Other solutions like LightHttpd require extensive work to make changes if you use fancy mod-rewrite rules. LiteSpeed does not need any fiddling. LiteSpeed just adds it's own clean little web interface so you can tweak if you want to, but I didn't really have to change anything. Last but not least, LiteSpeed gets along with Cpanel and DirectAdmin without any conflicts. LiteSpeed's so compatible I can literally do this on my server and the visitors don't even notice the difference (except speed of course!)
service httpd stop service lsws start (and visa versa)
I discovered LiteSpeed after reading that the main WordPress.com site had switched to it and had great success (they have a quarter million registered bloggers and of course many millions more daily readers).
The main reason I tried LiteSpeed is because it's roughly twice as efficient in memory use and performance than Apache 1.3 & 2. It runs PHP up to 50% faster than Apache and static files get served several times faster (faster than thttpd & lighthttpd). So this means you can either double the number of active connections you currently max out at now, or make a regular website respond nearly twice as fast, or under heavy loads still respond within a reasonable amount of time when Apache would be completely unresponsive.
The last situation was exactly what I was hoping for and LiteSpeed helped me keep my sanity on a bad VPS node.
Basically a couple months into owning my first VPS (after many years of shared-hosting experience) I started to realise many of the industry promises about VPS are an outright lie. You are far from isolated from your neighbours. Any disk load created by bad neighbours, mysql abuse or otherwise, will directly affect you and you are powerless to stop it. It's the most poorly regulated resource on any VPS node and it can be made worse by slack, ignorant or inexperienced hosts who do things like move accounts during busy periods onto and off a node at the root level which ties up the entire node for an hour or more. Under Apache, I was getting timeouts during peak visitor times and that was very upsetting.
On top of my VPS neighbour troubles, no matter how I fiddled with Apache's settings (with all the helpful guides around here) I could not make it comfortably fit within the guaranteed memory limit of my VPS with Cpanel, which I really wanted to keep as it's much easier for my end-users. Switching to LiteSpeed caused a radical drop in memory use. I've seen nearly 1000 people online within a one minute period on one of my sites and it still fit comfortably within my memory limits and stayed extremely responsive.
I've discovered another plus to LiteSpeed along the way that no-one else seems to mention. It's the only server software that "out of the box" seems to serve web compressed (gzipped) pages properly as chunked output. This means a visitor will start to see the page immediately as soon as the first part is sent vs. on Apache, mod_gzip actually de-chunks all the output, waits for it to finish, then compresses, then sends.
Mod_deflate on Apache 2.0 was supposed to fix this but it usually doesn't work properly and I've never gotten 2.0 to do compressed+chunked output on my sites without alot of fiddling and help from PHP. It also doesn't seem as smooth as LiteSpeed's output which gives you that "silky" watch-the-webpage render effect that's mentally rewarding to visitors.
On the downside, there is one reason you wouldn't use LiteSpeed - if you use highly customised Apache mods. LiteSpeed cannot support custom mod's and their directives. It does have a lot built in however that Apache does not, so you may way to examine if you can accomplish what you are trying to do another way.
I started with LiteSpeed 3.1 and when I found an incompatibility with an obscure Apache feature (ie. ErrorDocument's as plain text output: ErrorDocument 404 "Not Found" was not supported) they fixed it for me in a day or so after I reported it on their forum. The same for PHP support of "Apache_Response_Headers". Note I am not even a commercial customer! They are now up to 3.2 which has a few other fixes.
The free version of LiteSpeed has a limit of 150 simultaneous connections (plus the linux stack of 200 more which will backlog). I've never seen that limit hit. It's so intelligent about closing connections as needed that it's not an issue for me. Perhaps on a dedicated server with many virtual hosts this will be a problem. Up to version 3.1.1 that was the only limitation, however unfortunately in 3.2 they have decided to also limit virtual hosts to "5", so that's something else you'll have to consider if you want the free version, otherwise the commercial version has a free trial and money back guarantee.
Some people were upset with me that I wouldn't name my VPS host when I was constantly complaining of troubles but that's just my style when I have nothing nice to say still have to do business with them, so don't name names. But when I have something nice to say about a company, I like to speak up. So I heartily recommend LiteSpeed and hope other people give it a try - especially if you are on my VPS node ;-)
I have a website on domain x like https://example.com. One of our customers want to use their own domain name in the address bar and redirect to our web application. In the control panel of the customers website, we can forward the site to our domain without issues (stealth forwarding). After that, we are able to see the site and navigate to some options. But there are some issues/limitations. I cannot open some links, or click on tabs. The login feature works for chrome but not for internet explorer. Is this due the jump of http to https within an iframe? Or is it related to CORS? I have a Windows 2008 R2 server with Apache, which is the frond-end for the tomcat instances. "Tomcat Apache" serves our Java-based web application (mod_jk binded) ...
Earlier I made a setup using UNC path in my Apache configuration. I managed to make this work. Now on another installation using Apache 2.2.22 nothing works like before.
I am trying to set up log rotation on my Apache Server on Windows 2008 using the rotatelogs.exe executable. I believe I am having issues because my directory path has spaces.
From my understanding, a full path is needed for the ErrorLog but not for the CustomLog
They are located in different places on the file system. And i need to redirect from one project to another internally, so url for site.loc is preserved.
E.g. requesting site.loc/hey/there i need apache to serve files form proj2.0.
First, i know that on the .htaccess level we cannot use RewriteRule to file-system path (for security reasons).
Okay, an Alias is a workaround. Say I add an Alias to virtual host as following:
Code: Alias /newsite /some/path/to/proj2.0
Then if i'll add the rule to proj's .htaccess:
Code: RewriteRule ^hey/there /newsite
This will work.
But, the webroot does not work:
Code: RewriteRule ^$ /newsite
Is it i'm doing something wrong or there is some quirk about the webroot?
I've been developing websites using Apache on various Ubuntu laptops over the years. I just set up a new laptop with Apache and it worked fine. If I went to localhost in my browser then it showed the default page. So far, so good.
I then added a file to sites-available to add wildcard virtual hosts. This lets me use convenient urls while developing sites on my laptop. Once I enabled this site, every url that resolved to localhost became 403 Forbidden, including urls that should return 404. Here is an example entry from other_vhosts_access.log...
httpd server configuring.I share my files only from local disks but some of my resources are located on truecrypt secure volume.When I want to start my server now I have to mount my all drives first to have all path active. Otherwise httpd doesn't start with 'invalid path' error.My question is, how to force httpd starting without path or drive exists checking?
Platform Windows7 x64 Apache version 2.4.3 Package Xampp
I have downloaded httpd-2.4.9-win32.zip from VC10 Win32 link which includes IPv6 Crypto apr-1.5.0 apr-util-1.5.3 apr-iconv-1.2.1 openssl-1.0.1h zlib-1.2.8 pcre-8.34 libxml2-2.9.1 lua-5.1.5 expat-2.1.0.
I unzipped and installed on my system. Configured SSL. I installed in directory C:Apache24
I am trying to setup a subdomain and/or virtual host to redirect to a specific port and path. I have setup my server with DDYNS through my domain name registar. Through the ddyns client I have set it to assign a subdomain of "outside.name.com" so that my server will have a easy name to get to instead of a dynamic ip address.
I have also setup on my registrars host records another subdomain of "inside.name.com" with a static IP address for internet network accessing to my server.My problem is that I have a service/program on my server that I need access to both internally and externally and this service can only be access through a port of 32400 and HTTP address of /web. (e.g. outside.name.com:32400/web or inside.name.com:32400/web)...
Is there a way that I can create a VirtualHost or Subdomain of "service.*.name.com" that redirects them to ":32400/web" of the hostname they're on? (e.g. service.outside.name.com automatically forwards or proxies--to keep it pretty--to service.outside.name.com:32400/web)
I am trying to setup a subdomain and/or virtual host to redirect to a specific port and path. I am, however, having great difficulties doing this.
I have setup my server with DDYNS through my domain name registar.
Through the ddyns client I have set it to assign a subdomain of "outside.name.com" so that my server will have a easy name to get to instead of a dynamic ip address.
I have also setup on my registrars host records another subdomain of "inside.name.com" with a static IP address for internet network accessing to my server.
My problem is that I have a service/program on my server that I need access to both internally and externally and this service can only be access through a port of 32400 and HTTP address of /web. (e.g. outside.name.com:32400/web or inside.name.com:32400/web)
This is annoying for others to type out and I am just wanting to make it look pretty. Is there a way that I can create a VirtualHost or Subdomain of "service.*.name.com" that redirects them to ":32400/web" of the hostname they're on? (e.g. service.outside.name.com automatically forwards or proxies--to keep it pretty--to service.outside.name.com:32400/web)
I am using the following configure command in hope to generate a PHP binary which is totally independent, standalone and can be moved to other systems without caring for dependencies:
Does Plesk's own server, "sw-cp-server" use a different PHP binary than is used for hosted sites?I've found the .ini, /usr/local/psa/admin/conf/, but I can't figure out where the binary would be? I'm trying to run some WP-CLI commands, but some functions I have disabled in the default PHP.ini are required by WP-CLI.
