Howdy, Stranger!

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


Which free control panel is the best? - Page 2
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.

Which free control panel is the best?

2»

Comments

  • @Tony40 said:
    Keyhelp by a long shot, KH, has many security features that none of those panels have.

    Soon in new version without ant ETA. Nginx or Openlitespeed will come in 23.1

    Thanked by 1Tony40
  • Been using virtualmin for many years, never had a issue. Pretty much everything is done by a few clicks, it has the functions you need, its simple, stable, and yeah. Never had a reason to switch really.

  • kdhkdh Member
    edited January 2023

    @sandoz said:
    Keyhelp next version 23.1 will include Nginx (don't ask me if is nginx or nginx+apache), confirmed in the official forum.

    For me Keyhelp is very stable, the only cons is the lack of Nginx and Openlitespeed / LiteSpeed.

    A well-configured Apache build with Event MPM and stuff will make the overall performance close or even beyond Nginx. (+ Nginx sucks on dynamic content)
    I don't think that is a con but is there a reason why you prefer Nginx/OLS?

    Thanked by 1kidrock
  • kdhkdh Member
    edited January 2023

    IMO, if you're just hosting a small website by yourself, you can choose between HestiaCP, Webmin + Virtualmin, CyberPanel, Cloudpanel, etc. It doesn't matter if you're just using it yourself, at least if it is actively maintained & not crappy/vulnerable (e.g. CWP..)

    BUT, if you're trying to HOST others, don't be that guy that provides shared web hosting using some crappy free(or dirt cheap panel that nobody uses) panel like CWP. In this case, you should go between cPanel/Plesk/DA/ApisCP/ISPManager/KeyHelp Pro. The license is not like 100$/mo, and if you can't afford it, your business has some serious issues.

  • @kdh said:

    @sandoz said:
    Keyhelp next version 23.1 will include Nginx (don't ask me if is nginx or nginx+apache), confirmed in the official forum.

    For me Keyhelp is very stable, the only cons is the lack of Nginx and Openlitespeed / LiteSpeed.

    A well-configured Apache build with Event MPM and stuff will make the overall performance close or even beyond Nginx. (+ Nginx sucks on dynamic content)
    I don't think that is a con but is there a reason why you prefer Nginx/OLS?

    There are many but many reviews, tests independent or not. Nginx always win with fastcgi to apache.

    Why you refuse that? Nginx is much better in performance and page loading.

    Do you have high traffic website? That cônsules a lot of CPU or RAM? Make a test, if you don't see any changes through Nginx probably your website is simple?

    I can guarantee to you a professional that knows how to configure nginx and optimize it well. You don't will have doubts it performs better than Apache.

    You are saying the opposite. Which I respect, but i don't agree. Apache sucks many RAM, CPU and struggles with page loading and high amount of requests. When Nginx in this part does that better.

    Anyway, use what you want to use. But I don't believe that apache is better than Nginx through my tests.

    Yes is true apache is easy to configure and less "headache" but when it comes to optimization, speed, security, performance and protection Nginx is far away from apache. Nginx wins.

  • ArkasArkas Moderator

    @sandoz said: Yes is true apache is easy to configure and less "headache" but when it comes to optimization, speed, security, performance and protection Nginx is far away from apache. Nginx wins.

    I agree. + I think Apache is a bigger headache than Nginx

  • kdhkdh Member

    @sandoz said:

    @kdh said:

    @sandoz said:
    Keyhelp next version 23.1 will include Nginx (don't ask me if is nginx or nginx+apache), confirmed in the official forum.

    For me Keyhelp is very stable, the only cons is the lack of Nginx and Openlitespeed / LiteSpeed.

    A well-configured Apache build with Event MPM and stuff will make the overall performance close or even beyond Nginx. (+ Nginx sucks on dynamic content)
    I don't think that is a con but is there a reason why you prefer Nginx/OLS?

    There are many but many reviews, tests independent or not. Nginx always win with fastcgi to apache.

    Why you refuse that? Nginx is much better in performance and page loading.

    Do you have high traffic website? That cônsules a lot of CPU or RAM? Make a test, if you don't see any changes through Nginx probably your website is simple?

    I can guarantee to you a professional that knows how to configure nginx and optimize it well. You don't will have doubts it performs better than Apache.

    You are saying the opposite. Which I respect, but i don't agree. Apache sucks many RAM, CPU and struggles with page loading and high amount of requests. When Nginx in this part does that better.

    Anyway, use what you want to use. But I don't believe that apache is better than Nginx through my tests.

    Yes is true apache is easy to configure and less "headache" but when it comes to optimization, speed, security, performance and protection Nginx is far away from apache. Nginx wins.

    I've done a test with my website that has average visitors about ~50K daily. I settled up 2 VPS with the same performance, and installed Apache and Nginx each. I didn't compare with LiteSpeed since that is specifically designed for WordPress (at least for what I think, it isn't even that fast enough unless you're one of that super duper heavy PHP user) and stuff and I don't like their 'N-Workers' license BS.

    I compiled PHP for both instances with the same version, since Remi packages suck. (About ~10% performance decrease with what I've tested) Then I settled up FastCGI for both instances and enabled Event MPM for Apache. I've also done some minor tweaks that I won't talk about it here.

    Then, I benchmarked those 2 instances ny stress-testing it.

    Apache used slightly more RAM, and Nginx used slightly more CPU, which doesn't really matter(not that much difference) but I'll say Apache is slightly better since RAM is dirt cheap these days.

    Nginx did comparably better on handling static files. I settled up to make both of the instances to make a cache over RAM and got about 16K req/sec for Apache and 18K req/sec for Nginx. But since I just use a CDN for 99% of my static files, this didn't really matter to me.

    On dynamic content processing, Apache did comparably better (about 20%) for my environment. This would be more extreme if I used PHP-FPM instead for Nginx, which is just.. bad. Both used about the same CPU/RAM since I just used FastCGI.

    I also have a reverse proxy for my API server, and Nginx performed better on this. So I just decided to make a seperate Nginx instance for this server only.

    To combine all that, Apache was better for my needs in my environment, so I decided to stick with that, with an exception for reverse proxies.

    I'm just saying that there are some areas that one performs better than the other, and the same goes for other cases as well. I don't like people saying 'Apache is just bad' without even testing out with 2 'properly' configured instances. Apache is just garbage out of the box, but it can simply do so much better. Even if I'm not that Java guy (In this case, just go Apache. Enough said), Apache performed better in my environment.

  • I use CyberPanel

  • @kdh said:

    @sandoz said:

    @kdh said:

    @sandoz said:
    Keyhelp next version 23.1 will include Nginx (don't ask me if is nginx or nginx+apache), confirmed in the official forum.

    For me Keyhelp is very stable, the only cons is the lack of Nginx and Openlitespeed / LiteSpeed.

    A well-configured Apache build with Event MPM and stuff will make the overall performance close or even beyond Nginx. (+ Nginx sucks on dynamic content)
    I don't think that is a con but is there a reason why you prefer Nginx/OLS?

    There are many but many reviews, tests independent or not. Nginx always win with fastcgi to apache.

    Why you refuse that? Nginx is much better in performance and page loading.

    Do you have high traffic website? That cônsules a lot of CPU or RAM? Make a test, if you don't see any changes through Nginx probably your website is simple?

    I can guarantee to you a professional that knows how to configure nginx and optimize it well. You don't will have doubts it performs better than Apache.

    You are saying the opposite. Which I respect, but i don't agree. Apache sucks many RAM, CPU and struggles with page loading and high amount of requests. When Nginx in this part does that better.

    Anyway, use what you want to use. But I don't believe that apache is better than Nginx through my tests.

    Yes is true apache is easy to configure and less "headache" but when it comes to optimization, speed, security, performance and protection Nginx is far away from apache. Nginx wins.

    I've done a test with my website that has average visitors about ~50K daily. I settled up 2 VPS with the same performance, and installed Apache and Nginx each. I didn't compare with LiteSpeed since that is specifically designed for WordPress (at least for what I think, it isn't even that fast enough unless you're one of that super duper heavy PHP user) and stuff and I don't like their 'N-Workers' license BS.

    I compiled PHP for both instances with the same version, since Remi packages suck. (About ~10% performance decrease with what I've tested) Then I settled up FastCGI for both instances and enabled Event MPM for Apache. I've also done some minor tweaks that I won't talk about it here.

    Then, I benchmarked those 2 instances ny stress-testing it.

    Apache used slightly more RAM, and Nginx used slightly more CPU, which doesn't really matter(not that much difference) but I'll say Apache is slightly better since RAM is dirt cheap these days.

    Nginx did comparably better on handling static files. I settled up to make both of the instances to make a cache over RAM and got about 16K req/sec for Apache and 18K req/sec for Nginx. But since I just use a CDN for 99% of my static files, this didn't really matter to me.

    On dynamic content processing, Apache did comparably better (about 20%) for my environment. This would be more extreme if I used PHP-FPM instead for Nginx, which is just.. bad. Both used about the same CPU/RAM since I just used FastCGI.

    I also have a reverse proxy for my API server, and Nginx performed better on this. So I just decided to make a seperate Nginx instance for this server only.

    To combine all that, Apache was better for my needs in my environment, so I decided to stick with that, with an exception for reverse proxies.

    I'm just saying that there are some areas that one performs better than the other, and the same goes for other cases as well. I don't like people saying 'Apache is just bad' without even testing out with 2 'properly' configured instances. Apache is just garbage out of the box, but it can simply do so much better. Even if I'm not that Java guy (In this case, just go Apache. Enough said), Apache performed better in my environment.

    Your tests won't null the many BUT MANY reviews of performance Nginx vs Apache which clearly Nginx wins.

    That's in your case.

  • kdhkdh Member
    edited January 2023

    @sandoz said:

    @kdh said:

    @sandoz said:

    @kdh said:

    @sandoz said:
    Keyhelp next version 23.1 will include Nginx (don't ask me if is nginx or nginx+apache), confirmed in the official forum.

    For me Keyhelp is very stable, the only cons is the lack of Nginx and Openlitespeed / LiteSpeed.

    A well-configured Apache build with Event MPM and stuff will make the overall performance close or even beyond Nginx. (+ Nginx sucks on dynamic content)
    I don't think that is a con but is there a reason why you prefer Nginx/OLS?

    There are many but many reviews, tests independent or not. Nginx always win with fastcgi to apache.

    Why you refuse that? Nginx is much better in performance and page loading.

    Do you have high traffic website? That cônsules a lot of CPU or RAM? Make a test, if you don't see any changes through Nginx probably your website is simple?

    I can guarantee to you a professional that knows how to configure nginx and optimize it well. You don't will have doubts it performs better than Apache.

    You are saying the opposite. Which I respect, but i don't agree. Apache sucks many RAM, CPU and struggles with page loading and high amount of requests. When Nginx in this part does that better.

    Anyway, use what you want to use. But I don't believe that apache is better than Nginx through my tests.

    Yes is true apache is easy to configure and less "headache" but when it comes to optimization, speed, security, performance and protection Nginx is far away from apache. Nginx wins.

    I've done a test with my website that has average visitors about ~50K daily. I settled up 2 VPS with the same performance, and installed Apache and Nginx each. I didn't compare with LiteSpeed since that is specifically designed for WordPress (at least for what I think, it isn't even that fast enough unless you're one of that super duper heavy PHP user) and stuff and I don't like their 'N-Workers' license BS.

    I compiled PHP for both instances with the same version, since Remi packages suck. (About ~10% performance decrease with what I've tested) Then I settled up FastCGI for both instances and enabled Event MPM for Apache. I've also done some minor tweaks that I won't talk about it here.

    Then, I benchmarked those 2 instances ny stress-testing it.

    Apache used slightly more RAM, and Nginx used slightly more CPU, which doesn't really matter(not that much difference) but I'll say Apache is slightly better since RAM is dirt cheap these days.

    Nginx did comparably better on handling static files. I settled up to make both of the instances to make a cache over RAM and got about 16K req/sec for Apache and 18K req/sec for Nginx. But since I just use a CDN for 99% of my static files, this didn't really matter to me.

    On dynamic content processing, Apache did comparably better (about 20%) for my environment. This would be more extreme if I used PHP-FPM instead for Nginx, which is just.. bad. Both used about the same CPU/RAM since I just used FastCGI.

    I also have a reverse proxy for my API server, and Nginx performed better on this. So I just decided to make a seperate Nginx instance for this server only.

    To combine all that, Apache was better for my needs in my environment, so I decided to stick with that, with an exception for reverse proxies.

    I'm just saying that there are some areas that one performs better than the other, and the same goes for other cases as well. I don't like people saying 'Apache is just bad' without even testing out with 2 'properly' configured instances. Apache is just garbage out of the box, but it can simply do so much better. Even if I'm not that Java guy (In this case, just go Apache. Enough said), Apache performed better in my environment.

    Your tests won't null the many BUT MANY reviews of performance Nginx vs Apache which clearly Nginx wins.

    That's in your case.

    What review? Most of what I've seen is some random people just benchmarking raw Apache & tuned Nginx with FastCGI & cache and saying BS like "heeeyy apache is so slow don't use it!!!!"

    I've even saw a benchmark that enabled HTTP/2 only on Nginx's side and saying some weird shill like "Apachi is hundre times shower and bad for ur seoh! Don usz it!'"

    Moreover, the thing that determines the website speed the most is not the webserver, but the database.

    And you are the person who needs to be testing at your environment, not just looking at the reviews. Do you really believe that LiteSpeed official benchmark stating their web server is 2,000 times faster than Nginx/Apache? Please say no.

  • Virtualmin is by far the most powerful of the group,

  • @Snusboks said:
    Been using virtualmin for many years, never had a issue. Pretty much everything is done by a few clicks, it has the functions you need, its simple, stable, and yeah. Never had a reason to switch really.

    I think it's easy for a pro,too many options that I don't know about as a freebie.It looks great and professional though

  • @kdh said:
    IMO, if you're just hosting a small website by yourself, you can choose between HestiaCP, Webmin + Virtualmin, CyberPanel, Cloudpanel, etc. It doesn't matter if you're just using it yourself, at least if it is actively maintained & not crappy/vulnerable (e.g. CWP..)

    BUT, if you're trying to HOST others, don't be that guy that provides shared web hosting using some crappy free(or dirt cheap panel that nobody uses) panel like CWP. In this case, you should go between cPanel/Plesk/DA/ApisCP/ISPManager/KeyHelp Pro. The license is not like 100$/mo, and if you can't afford it, your business has some serious issues.

    Totally,I'm just using the control panel for my own websites,no need for reseller or provider accounts. So it would be excellent it keeps simple and stable. AApanel and Hestiacp is the best for me but Hestiacp is a liitle inconvient (frequently log out and not so easy to install PEAR etc.) Aapanel works great but I dont wanna private info disclosure on the other hand.

  • I use MyVestaCP and KeyHelp since 2019.

    MyVestaCP for VPS with less than 1GB RAM: one for Nextcloud, one for backup server, one for Jellyfin disk.

    For the file manager install "EL FM" in MyVestaCP.

    WordPress is easily installed manually or via the CLI.

    In practice KeyHelp with Apache MPM event works very well according to my requirements for WordPress, Magento, NextCloud, Chamilo LMS, Moodle, Prestashop and Joomla sites.

  • aapanel is the undisputed best for users who arent fully familiar with setting up webservers and just want everything done on the UI.

  • @kdh said:
    A well-configured Apache build with Event MPM and stuff will make the overall performance close or even beyond Nginx. (+ Nginx sucks on dynamic content)

    Can you give me any tutorial links to configure Apache as you have said above for a WordPress site? I want to try that using Plesk panel and also set up free Cloudflare if needed.

  • I better use the paid one for lifetime like apiscp than using the free one

  • kdhkdh Member

    @kidrock said:

    @kdh said:
    A well-configured Apache build with Event MPM and stuff will make the overall performance close or even beyond Nginx. (+ Nginx sucks on dynamic content)

    Can you give me any tutorial links to configure Apache as you have said above for a WordPress site? I want to try that using Plesk panel and also set up free Cloudflare if needed.

    Check https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/misc/perf-tuning.html.

    Thanked by 1kidrock
  • imho, cloudpanel is the best one. it has pretty nice UI

  • @TrK said:
    I think they do have that, i personally use fastpanel(and easypanel for docker) just because of the auth and 2FA, only if they support the fido keys as well, it would be a great UI to give to the clients.

    Have you tried Cloudpanel too? If yes, which one do you think is better, between Fastpanel and Cloudpanel?

  • TrKTrK Member

    @kidrock said:

    @TrK said:
    I think they do have that, i personally use fastpanel(and easypanel for docker) just because of the auth and 2FA, only if they support the fido keys as well, it would be a great UI to give to the clients.

    Have you tried Cloudpanel too? If yes, which one do you think is better, between Fastpanel and Cloudpanel?

    Yes and i am currently using cloudpanel for personal websites with varnish and ngx_pagespeed but i can't use it for clients as they need the mail stack, I would go with cloudpanel anytime as long as I don't have requirement that specially ask for mail and other stack.

    Thanked by 1kidrock
  • fastpanel.direct seems to be good.

  • NetDynamics24NetDynamics24 Member, Host Rep

    My vote goes to Virtualmin as well.

  • Cyberpanel/Openlitespeed works very nicely for me. If I have a criticism it's that the email side of it is poor. For example you can only have a forwarder if you create a full email account for the same address too. But it's fine if you only want to receive email to one or two email addresses.

  • @TrK said:

    @kidrock said:

    @TrK said:
    I think they do have that, i personally use fastpanel(and easypanel for docker) just because of the auth and 2FA, only if they support the fido keys as well, it would be a great UI to give to the clients.

    Have you tried Cloudpanel too? If yes, which one do you think is better, between Fastpanel and Cloudpanel?

    Yes and i am currently using cloudpanel for personal websites with varnish and ngx_pagespeed but i can't use it for clients as they need the mail stack, I would go with cloudpanel anytime as long as I don't have requirement that specially ask for mail and other stack.

    So Cloudpanel for your personal websites and Fastpanel for clients that need emails?

  • TrKTrK Member

    @kidrock said:

    @TrK said:

    @kidrock said:

    @TrK said:
    I think they do have that, i personally use fastpanel(and easypanel for docker) just because of the auth and 2FA, only if they support the fido keys as well, it would be a great UI to give to the clients.

    Have you tried Cloudpanel too? If yes, which one do you think is better, between Fastpanel and Cloudpanel?

    Yes and i am currently using cloudpanel for personal websites with varnish and ngx_pagespeed but i can't use it for clients as they need the mail stack, I would go with cloudpanel anytime as long as I don't have requirement that specially ask for mail and other stack.

    So Cloudpanel for your personal websites and Fastpanel for clients that need emails?

    Yeah typically sums it up, and i do DA or cPanel for kids who demands like Karen.

    Thanked by 2WebProject kidrock
  • Cloudpanel

Sign In or Register to comment.