Litespeed vs Apache + nginx as reverse proxy

jetchirag

For running cPanel server with increasing numbers of website. What do you recommend out of
1) Litespeed
2) Apache
for maximum performance and Fast Server.

DashKiller

nginx

eva2000

Max performance on cpanel use litespeed as weakness for apache with nginx reverse proxy will be php-fpm/php backend of Apache especially for non-cached php requests. You can't get around that compared to litespeed lsapi php handler's better performance.

Arch

@DashKiller said:
nginx

Really not a viable option when you're going to have a bunch of users upset that their .htaccess rules aren't working anymore =\

tsanten

@eva2000 What about Openlitespeed ?

eva2000

OpenLiteSpeed is just as fast as LiteSpeed enterprise but no cpanel plugin support or on the fly .htaccess support - instead of OLS you set .htaccess or apache mod_rewrite rules in OLS admin console section. Sort of like apache moving .htaccess rules up into httpd.conf. So if you using cpanel, OLS isn't an option like LiteSpeed as it has native cpanel plugin support.

jetchirag

@eva2000 said:
OpenLiteSpeed is just as fast as LiteSpeed enterprise but no cpanel plugin support or on the fly .htaccess support - instead of OLS you set .htaccess or apache mod_rewrite rules in OLS admin console section. Sort of like apache moving .htaccess rules up into httpd.conf. So if you using cpanel, OLS isn't an option like LiteSpeed as it has native cpanel plugin support.

Ohkay, so Open Source version of Litespeed can't be used for cPanels?

eva2000

not in the way Litespeed Enterprise can = full integration into reading httpd.conf and vhosts and on the fly reading of .htaccess files

ricardo

As alluded to, the question doesn't really make much sense. For performance, you wouldn't want ttwo webservers, nginx would be fine on its own. There are a lot of benchmark tests that can be Googled. Configuration obviously matters a lot, as does the applications running on the server.

For compatibility + performance, nginx is good for handling tens of thousands of concurrent connections, Apache is good for backwards compatibility.

It's worth spending time formulating a better question with details than 'which is best' , 'what is fastest'. Not really a dig at you OP, I find a lot of threads here are like that.

WSS

@ricardo said:
As alluded to, the question doesn't really make much sense. For performance, you wouldn't want ttwo webservers, nginx would be fine on its own.

For compatibility + performance, nginx is good for handling tens of thousands of concurrent connections, Apache is good for backwards compatibility.

My guess is that the OP was asking about using nginx as a reverse proxy, you know, as it was designed. This could/would take a bit of load off of a system running Apache2+mod_, so it wouldn't have the overhead for serving static content- but with FastCGI (or outright replacing Apache, as you suggested), it's not really very necessary anymore.

xyl0n

You can also try a new frontend, liveconfig, coded in C++, it makes changes in realtime

https://www.liveconfig.com/en/

ajaibdigital

a

themew

Nginx and Varnish. Fast and simply works.