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.
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 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.
(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 ;-)
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'm setting up a new VPS, and I have the option of a number of Linux distributions to choose from. There's all the usual suspects: CentOS, Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora Core, SuSE, etc. Why would I pick one over the others? I've used CentOS before, but I'm open to trying other distros. There's been lots of fuss over Ubuntu on the desktop, but why would I choose it for a server?
I've been leaning toward going with WestHost for a medium-sized project. They offer VPS without root access, though, and much of the advice in the "HOW TO: Secure and Optimize your VPS" thread requires running commands as root.
My experience has all been with colocating my own servers in a data center, with everything accessible when I log in as root (though of course I ordinarily logged in as a normal user instead). This was three or four years ago, and a lot has changed since then.
Can someone who's up on this stuff please describe the pros and cons of non-root VPS service such as WestHost provides? Cost seems to be one advantage :-} and I imagine it's wise for inexpert Webmasters not to have a completely wide-open system. Are there other pluses to non-root VPS that aren't as obvious?
Most importantly, what kind of operations will I not be able to carry out if I go with WestHost or a similar non-root VPS host? Can I reasonably expect the hosting service to perform the kind of locking-down described in WHT's tutorial on VPS security?
I'll be asking similar questions of WestHost's support people but thought it would be a good idea to ask people without a stake in either the root-access or the non-root way of doing things.
I'm starting to see this, or maybe it's always existed, but it seems like bigger sites are hosting their images on external servers. I've even seen some sites use Flickr as the host for all of their images. I guess for Flickr that means you have a guarenteed image CMS, but I really don't see that as why Flickr was created.
I'm sure there are bandwidth advantages, and maybe that's the main reason. Is there a point where the traffic gets so high that moving images off site would improve load times and sever loads? Is it a worthwhile endeavor for smaller sites? I'm curious to see what the thoughts are on this trend.
Is it possible to get a rough description of the benefits of a VPS host over a shared host?
1) Support. Should support with a VPS host be better than my current shared provider? They offer live chat and a ticketing system. Tickets can take hours to get a response, live chat minutes but often there are no support operaters to answer the question.
2) Uptime. Will uptime be improved upon? My current host tends to range from 97%-99% in a month. Importantly will it suffer from soft outages where parts of the account are down (such as MySQL or http)?
3) Traffic. What levels of traffic will base VPS packages handle? Will a few semi active forums (say max 20 users on 3 forums) be manageable alongside several PHP/MySQL galleries and several hundred normal PHP pages?
4) Load. Does the load usage of other customers on the same server effect your account in the same way it does in a shared environment? Can one user bog down the entire server for everyone else?
5) Management. How much control is given to a user in managed VPS environment. Can you restart OS yourself (and do things like edit the firewall blocks)? Do you have to keep the OS (Linux in my case) and things like Apache and PHP up to date yourself or is that done for you.
6) Usage Policies. Are the usage policies in place in a VPS environment (limiting the amount of CPU process and memory you can use). If yes are they higher than in a shared environment.
Is it possible to get a little more on a few of the hosts I've looked at (if possible I'd like to be below the $50 a month mark).
Is it a case of picking any of these and getting a similar support and hosting service?
WiredTree seems to offer a decent compromise of price against value. Given that my site is still pretty small at the moment, would the smallest JaguarPC package be a better fit (so I'm not spending money for specs I'm not using).
Unfortunately disk space is a fairly big factor as the site uses quite a few image and small video files (I'm using something like 2GB at the moment but this would increase fairly rapidly over time). Does that mean a shared host is better suited for my needs?
I see Site5 have a 5 dollar deal on their homepage, but I don't know if it's any good. I hear from a lot of people to get a reseller account if you plan to make a lot of websites. It's more expensive than the 5 dollar plan with less bandwidth and storage, so there got to be something to it. What are the benefits of a reseller account compared to that 5 dollar deal plan?
As far as I see each hosting company uses various methods to make customers buy their domains. They can provide free domains, free Fantastico scripts, website building software, templates etc. I am planning to launch my hosting company really soon. Also I think to include free internet marketing services in some hosting packages. I am just wondering if such internet marketing program can be considered as a significant competitive advantage stimulating customers to make a purchase?
I know to some of you this may sound like a totally silly question. But I would like to know what the main advantages are if you have a VPS instead of a shared reseller hosting.
I notice some of the basic VPS packages give you 512MB of memory. Other than that, the rest of the stats seem to be along the lines of what you might get in an advanced reseller hosting plan such as one available from Reseller Zoom.
I am looking into VPS as a dedicated server is a little over my budget, however, I am not entirely clear what makes VPS better.
In a 2 X Quad Xeon server with 16GB RAM and 2 X 500GB on DirectAdmin.
IOwait is less than 10% most of the times.
So litespeed told me to go with a 2 CPU core license.
1. So since i going with 2 CPU core license. It will only make 2 cores user litespeed for PHP out of 8 cores? what other cores gonna do? only static content? Or other cores gonna use Apache for php? can you plz explain.
2. Do we have to configure cache like mod_cache, mod_disk_cache, and mod_mem_cache etc with litespeed too? Or it has its own methods of caching?
3. Should use their PHP LiteSpeed SAPI over normal PHP? Is there any compatibility problems with scripts like Vbulletin, jamroom?
I'm now running litespeed server to power sites on a VPS. Currently, a site is working without https access normally. However, when you access the site via HTTPS (SSL), I recieve ioncube is not loaded. Comparing the phpinfo, it appears that the https is loading the old configuration of phpinfo, what's worse, is that it's loading PHP 4. Both however, load the same PHP configuration file.
when I type "top" into ssh I see 3 proccesses of lshttpd, 2 are running by nobody, 1 by root., lsws is installed as nobody:nobody. Also, I see 2 lsphp5 processes, by nobody both. I have 4 virtual hosts configured. Are those proccesses normal, I think there should be only 1 proccess lshttpd and lsphp5.
Can you check if you are running litespeed how many proccesses of lshttpd you have?