We compared the speed at which Varnish and LSCache deliver cached content. We ran tests with small dynamic and static files, and tested with and without keep-alive.
Serving Dynamic Content - hello.php
Serving Static Content - hello.html
LSCache typically outperforms Varnish by a factor of 2.
Summary
-
LSCache Performance Gain (Dynamic Content)
Concurrent Users Keep-Alive Apache / Varnish 10 No 2.3x Yes 2.1x 100 No 1.8x Yes 1.6x -
LSCache Performance Gain (Static Content)
Concurrent Users Keep-Alive Apache / Varnish 10 No 2.6x Yes 3.0x 100 No 1.8x Yes 2.2x
Notes:
- Both static and dynamic files were 4.0K in size. We used such a small files to avoid saturating the network connection.
- The test was performed over a 10GBps network connection to make sure network bandwidth did not become a bottleneck.
- The benchmark simulated serving 10000 requests to 10 and 100 users.
Test Environment
Software:
LiteSpeed Enterprise 5.1.13 Apache 2.4.25 PHP 7.1.2 Varnish 4.1.5 cPanel 62
Server hardware specs:
Intel Xeon X5660 Single Core @ 2.80GHz 2GB RAM 50GB HDD CloudLinux 7.3
Client hardware specs:
Intel Xeon E5-1620 Dual Core @ 3.60GHz 2GB RAM CentOS 6.8 with OpenVZ kernel 2.6.32-042stab116.1 Intel X540 10GBASE-T on board NIC
Network Switch:
Netgear XS708E-100NES 8-ports 10G switch
We welcome your feedback on our forum.