Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


New LiteSpeed (Open and Enterprise) vs. nginx vs. Apache Benchmarks!
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

New LiteSpeed (Open and Enterprise) vs. nginx vs. Apache Benchmarks!

lsmichaellsmichael Member
edited November 2013 in General

Howdy all,

Been a while since I posted here. Figured some of y'all might be interested. We (LiteSpeed Technologies) just posted some new benchmarks:

summary blog post
small static file benchmarks
small static file HTTPS benchmarks

These are just the first in a series of benchmarks we're planning. We're starting with small static files and working our way through dynamic content up to web applications. (This may take a while.)

In these benchmarks, LiteSpeed and OpenLiteSpeed dusted the competition. I'm sure some of you are going to take issue with that. That's kind of what I'm hoping. Y'all are some opinionated people and I'd love to hear your feedback on the tests — either here, on our forum, on the blog, through email, whatever. We're perfectly happy to retest if someone finds something wrong.

Looking forward to it.

m

Surprised?
  1. Are you surprised by the benchmark results?51 votes
    1. Yes! I knew LiteSpeed was amazing, but... Wow!
      25.49%
    2. Yes! You totally screwed it up. Here's what you should have done...
      11.76%
    3. No! I already knew LiteSpeed was the best!
        9.80%
    4. No! Of course LiteSpeed won LiteSpeed's benchmarks... Let's see some that aren't fixed.
      19.61%
    5. Pfffft... Who cares about benchmarks?
      33.33%
«1

Comments

  • how dare you to insult the overlord nginx

  • Meh. I ain't scared of him.

    Thanked by 1Steve81
  • Now post benchmarks showing how fast each can serve up galleries of high-resolution porn.

  • Just waiting for htaccess in OLS..

  • Based on these benchmarks, the question why LSWS and not OLS arises?

  • Honestly, there's a couple major flaws with the testing procedure.

    First of all, LiteSpeed is a web server daemon targeted towards high-end traffic levels. High-end traffic levels wouldn't use OpenVZ, wouldn't use only 8gb of ram, and wouldn't be gimped to half a CPU core. This in mind, I'd like to see a benchmark with a fully capable machine.

    Second of all, if you're worried about AB not being able to produce enough load, watch the client's CPU usage.

    All in all, I think the tests do hold some water. However, what needs to be considered more is how much each web server performs under more performant systems, including an up-to-date kernel and operating system with hardware that is not purposefully gimped. I think that's where you'll see which systems are more or less performant under what workloads, and which ones produce the most bang for their buck.

    Thanked by 10xdragon
  • I agree with everything Rallias said - there's definitely a few flaws in the testing procedure.

    • I don't trust Apache Bench as far as I can throw it
    • OpenVZ? Half a CPU core? Cmon. Let's see something on a modern kernel without any overhead. Just toss it on an i3-2100 or even an E3-1240v2. That's more realistic.
  • @Rallias said:
    Honestly, there's a couple major flaws with the testing procedure.

    High-end traffic levels wouldn't use OpenVZ,

    The target audience (here) overwhelmingly does, though

  • The test was done by the company selling the software, conflict of interest.

    Mun

  • Well, I haven't benchmarked Litespeed at all, but I got completely different results.

    Apache with mpm_event had about 16 000 requests per second and Nginx up to 35 000 and the server was only on a VM...

    I'm not sure what you exactly have done guys, but I really got different results (also on the PHP benchmark) :)

  • @texteditor said:
    Now post benchmarks showing how fast each can serve up galleries of high-resolution porn.

    Nothing to say. Just wanted to see this again.

  • @ihatetonyy said:
    Just waiting for htaccess in OLS..

    Sorry for disappearing for so long. I'll stry to answer these kind of in order.

    We're considering some form of .htaccess compatibility for OpenLiteSpeed. It won't be full .htaccess compatibility like Enterprise, but we want to make OpenLiteSpeed easier to use. (Just not quite as easy as Enterprise.) This will take a while (we've got a lot on our plate), but one of the leading ideas is a function that you could run to red .htaccess files and integrate them in your setting on restart. Basically this means you can update your .htaccess files every time you upgrade your applications, but you can't do shared hosting.

  • @kontam said:
    Based on these benchmarks, the question why LSWS and not OLS arises?

    Well, as pointed out by ihatetonyy, OpenLiteSpeed doesn't have .htaccess compatibility. It's also not compatible with hosting control panels. It runs really fast, supports a lot of features, can understand Apache rewrite syntax, and has a nifty GUI, but it's not a drop-in Apache replacement. You have to buy a license to get a drop-in replacement.

    m

  • @texteditor said:
    The target audience (here) overwhelmingly does, though

    Exactly! @Rallias @manacit , we sell a lot of VPS and Ultra VPS licenses. A lot a lot. And those licenses are limited to 2GB and 8GB of RAM respectively. LSWS is all about getting more out of your hardware. Instead of upgrading their little VPS, people put LiteSpeed on it and save money.

  • @lsmichael said:
    Nothing to say. Just wanted to see this again.

    Aren't you at work? It's bad to watch porn while you're at work.

  • @Mun said:
    The test was done by the company selling the software, conflict of interest.

    Mun

    Well... I never!

    I'm shocked and disheartened that you would think such things! I know I picked "No! I already knew LiteSpeed was the best!" in the poll above.

  • @Amfy said:
    Well, I haven't benchmarked Litespeed at all, but I got completely different results.

    Apache with mpm_event had about 16 000 requests per second and Nginx up to 35 000 and the server was only on a VM...

    I'm not sure what you exactly have done guys, but I really got different results (also on the PHP benchmark) :)

    Link to your configs. We'd love to go over them. Ours are available here: http://www.litespeedtech.com/packages/benchmark/configs.tgz

  • http://turnkeye.com/blog/nginx-vs-litespeed-test-magento/

    interesting info. seems litespeed didn't outperform nginx.

    Thanked by 1Roph
  • @lsmichael said
    You have to buy a license

    I see no reason to try OpenLiteSpeed after this.

  • Awmusic12635Awmusic12635 Member, Host Rep

    @doughnet said:
    http://turnkeye.com/blog/nginx-vs-litespeed-test-magento/

    interesting info. seems litespeed didn't outperform nginx.

    A lot can change in 3 years

  • good point flip.

  • edited November 2013

    Just converted a customer to LiteSpeed the other day. cPanel server with one high-traffic site (around 2M pageviews per day) and ~50 low traffic sites.

    Apache mod_fcgid, mpm prefork + nginxcp vs LiteSpeed:

    image

    LiteSpeed rulez! :)

  • any chance of offering discounts for Litespeed VPS licenses? I always wanted to get one :(

  • Litespeed price lill more high. Hope so they give us some discount.

  • George_Fusioned
    So you did not use FPC at all on nginx? And started to use it on LS?

  • @Ruchirablog said:
    any chance of offering discounts for Litespeed VPS licenses? I always wanted to get one :(
    @whmsys said:
    Litespeed price lill more high. Hope so they give us some discount.

    Sorry, guys. No discounts (except for bulk purchases/reselling). Generally, we figure if you need LSWS, you're saving money (on hardware, optimization, troubleshooting) by buying it.

    Who was it that said "Free is the most expensive price"?

    m

  • @George_Fusioned said:
    Just converted a customer to LiteSpeed the other day. cPanel server with one high-traffic site (around 2M pageviews per day) and ~50 low traffic sites.

    Apache mod_fcgid, mpm prefork + nginxcp vs LiteSpeed:

    image

    LiteSpeed rulez! :)

    Said thank you on vpsBoard, but might as well repeat it here. Thanks!

    Benchmarks and speed aside, this decrease in load, this smooth handling of high traffic and spikes, is the real point of LiteSpeed.

    m

  • @doughnet said:
    http://turnkeye.com/blog/nginx-vs-litespeed-test-magento/

    interesting info. seems litespeed didn't outperform nginx.

    Seen this benchmark before. I could understand if the results were similar, but the huge difference makes me think something is fishy. Of course, I guess it's a little late to ask to see their configs... I'd love to see someone reproduce those results, but that's probably asking too much. Benchmarks are a pain.

    m

  • @alexvolk said:
    I see no reason to try OpenLiteSpeed after this.

    Not really sure what you mean. Maybe there was a misunderstanding? You have to buy a license to get Enterprise edition (which has the features we were talking about). OpenLiteSpeed, of course, does not require a license.

    m

  • MicrolinuxMicrolinux Member
    edited November 2013

    @alexvolk said: I see no reason to try OpenLiteSpeed after this.

    @lsmichael said: Not really sure what you mean. Maybe there was a misunderstanding?

    You are not giving all of your hard work away for free. Therefore, your company is evil for trying to make money and may you all burn in hell. Because everything should be free, and unicorns should crap candy. Ironically, we will go about our day jobs where we get paid to do work.

    Thanked by 1Chronic
Sign In or Register to comment.