Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Quick Links


Categories

In this Discussion

› › Looking for LiteSpeed Cache enabled hosting
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.

Looking for LiteSpeed Cache enabled hosting

JavlinJavlin Member
in Requests

I'm looking for a LiteSpeed-powered shared hosting provider with LS Cache enabled, any suggestions? Preferably pure SSD storage.

My current host (BuyShared) uses LiteSpeed, but they don't have the cache feature enabled, so I'm looking for an alternative where I can benefit from the full LS potential.

Thanks!

Comments

  • raindog308raindog308 Administrator, Veteran

    Javlin said: My current host (BuyShared) uses LiteSpeed, but they don't have the cache feature enabled, so I'm looking for an alternative where I can benefit from the full LS potential.

    Don't you really want a VPS in that case? I mean, regardless of whatever this caching gives you, you'd still be sharing that with thousands of other users on the node.

    This is kind of like saying "I want a shared web host with E3 processors" or "I want a shared web host with 24-core servers"...any additional processing power goes to supporting more customers, not making your site blitz.

    Shared hosting and high performance web hosting usually don't go together. That's not to say that buyshared or many others don't provide a good web hosting experience, but if you're at a point where cache vs. non-cache makes a different, that sounds like you want your own dedicated resources.

    @Francisco will now correct me.

  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Host, Host Rep, Veteran

    Offering lscache on shared hosting is an iffy one. Maybe they've improved it since then but I always heard 'dont enable it in a shared environment'.

    I don't think it's going to help you anymore than using say, WP Total Cache. It might help with some dynamic content but unless you have users logging in all the time and or posting comments then lscache isn't going to change much.

    Francisco

  • JavlinJavlin Member
    edited November 2016

    @raindog308 said:

    Javlin said: My current host (BuyShared) uses LiteSpeed, but they don't have the cache feature enabled, so I'm looking for an alternative where I can benefit from the full LS potential.

    Don't you really want a VPS in that case? I mean, regardless of whatever this caching gives you, you'd still be sharing that with thousands of other users on the node.

    This is kind of like saying "I want a shared web host with E3 processors" or "I want a shared web host with 24-core servers"...any additional processing power goes to supporting more customers, not making your site blitz.

    Shared hosting and high performance web hosting usually don't go together. That's not to say that buyshared or many others don't provide a good web hosting experience, but if you're at a point where cache vs. non-cache makes a different, that sounds like you want your own dedicated resources.

    @Francisco will now correct me.

    I don't really have that much traffic or need for resources, I'm just looking forward to try the LS Cache plugin (https://es.wordpress.org/plugins/litespeed-cache/) for making a WordPress site as fast possible.

    I prefer it over W3 Total Cache etc. as they're not as lightweight as the native solution :)

  • gleertgleert Member, Host Rep

    @Javlin what's you're budget?

  • WHTWHT Member

    I was using Veerotech before some years and they used litespeed. Really helpful guy is the Brent, ask them.

  • JavlinJavlin Member

    @gleert said:
    @Javlin what's you're budget?

    < $10/monthly

  • dodedodododedodo Member

    Javlin said: < $10/monthly

    So why don't you get a VPS?

  • InteregatorInteregator Member

    I know that Hostwinds is providing litespeed ssd hosting, but not sure about LS Cache, you'd better ask them directly

  • gleertgleert Member, Host Rep

    dodedodo said: So why don't you get a VPS?

    Because the Litespeed license with LSCache costs 26$/month...

  • ClouviderClouvider Member, Patron Provider

    @dodedodo said:

    Javlin said: < $10/monthly

    So why don't you get a VPS?

    Do you even know what you're posting about ?

  • dodedodododedodo Member

    Clouvider said: Do you even know what you're posting about ?

    Obviously not. Sorry!

    Thanked by 1Clouvider
  • NdhaNdha Member

    @Javlin Hawkhost enabled it

  • JavlinJavlin Member

    @Francisco said:
    Offering lscache on shared hosting is an iffy one. Maybe they've improved it since then but I always heard 'dont enable it in a shared environment'.

    I don't think it's going to help you anymore than using say, WP Total Cache. It might help with some dynamic content but unless you have users logging in all the time and or posting comments then lscache isn't going to change much.

    Francisco

    Hi Francisco,

    May I ask exactly exactly do you say is an iffy one? Just wondering. I'm sure you had your reasons or bad experiences to choose not to enable it.

    From my understanding as of 2016 the feature must be pretty solid, as it has been enabled on other shared hostings, such as: https://blog.hawkhost.com/2015/07/22/super-charge-wordpress-with-litespeed-cache/ , http://www.getnews.info/570053/icestormcom-delivers-wp-hosting-with-litespeed-cache.html or https://www.a2hosting.com/kb/a2-hosting-products/turbo-web-hosting/enabling-caching-on-turbo-web-hosting

    Reviews and testing show significant speed increase compared to WP Super Cache plugin:
    http://ops.kickassd.com/wp-super-cache-vs-litespeed-wordpress-cache/ I guess it's also a benefit to hosts, as native cache reduces CPU usage etc.

  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Host, Host Rep, Veteran

    The cache plugin had concerns of cross contaminating between sites if there was any weird reads.

    It's why vmusing varnish on a shared hosting server isnt great since you either have to disable anything carrying a cookie or start adding manual blocks.

    Francisco

  • AlyssaDAlyssaD Member

    I am guessing here based on my knowledge of caches.

    If we were to assume it was like memcache for example than a person on the same server could access your cache. If the data that was stored was sensitive it could be used to steal information. The other option is simply being nefarious and changing the cached document. Meaning they could change your page and insert links.

    If you are using wordpress, just use one of the flat file caches. For example wp-super-cache.

  • RalliasRallias Member
    edited November 2016

    Francisco said: It's why vmusing varnish on a shared hosting server isnt great since you either have to disable anything carrying a cookie or start adding manual blocks.

    So what you're saying is, Varnish is really intended for really high-end managed shared hosting?

  • gleertgleert Member, Host Rep

    I have tested it a few month ago... I did a test on a WP site and compared the following setups:

    KVM VPS, 2GB, 2CPU (E5-2660v3)
Ubuntu 16.04
EasyEngine
PHP 7
Redis full page cache

KVM VPS, 2GB, 2CPU (E5-2660v3)
CentOS 7
Plesk 12.5 & LiteSpeed
PHP 7
LSCache

    TTFB (Time to first byte)
    The WP site running on LS (LiteSpeed) had an average TTFB of 0.08 seconds and on EE (EasyEngine) of 0.32 seconds (Meaured with NixStats)

    Total load time
    The WP site running on LS had an average load time of 0.12 seconds and on EE of 0.41 seconds (Meaured with NixStats)

    Load Test
    When doing a load test using loader.io with 1000 concurrent users during 5 minutes the load on the LS server was almost half of the EE server and the memory usage was one third on the LS server (compared with EE). Also the response times where much better on the LS server. I have lost the exact numbers, but this was the general result.

    I think it's a very good product, if they just had a more sensible pricing they would be selling like hot cakes..

    Thanked by 1tmwc
  • navneetkknavneetkk Member

    @gleert said:
    I have tested it a few month ago... I did a test on a WP site and compared the following setups:

    KVM VPS, 2GB, 2CPU (E5-2660v3)
Ubuntu 16.04
EasyEngine
PHP 7
Redis full page cache

KVM VPS, 2GB, 2CPU (E5-2660v3)
CentOS 7
Plesk 12.5 & LiteSpeed
PHP 7
LSCache

    TTFB (Time to first byte)
    The WP site running on LS (LiteSpeed) had an average TTFB of 0.08 seconds and on EE (EasyEngine) of 0.32 seconds (Meaured with NixStats)

    Total load time
    The WP site running on LS had an average load time of 0.12 seconds and on EE of 0.41 seconds (Meaured with NixStats)

    Load Test
    When doing a load test using loader.io with 1000 concurrent users during 5 minutes the load on the LS server was almost half of the EE server and the memory usage was one third on the LS server (compared with EE). Also the response times where much better on the LS server. I have lost the exact numbers, but this was the general result.

    I think it's a very good product, if they just had a more sensible pricing they would be selling like hot cakes..

    Now they really sell like hot cakes 😅

  • JeDaYoshiJeDaYoshi Member

    @navneetkk said:
    Now they really sell like hot cakes 😅

    Now that was a really good necro!

    Thanked by 1kdh
  • angstromangstrom Moderator

    @navneetkk said: Now they really sell like hot cakes 😅

    True, but there was no need to necropost to point this out. Please read the rules

    Thread closed

This discussion has been closed.