litespeed and nginx

[anewday]

Read this from another forum.

Just to throw in a plug for nginx as a reverse proxy, we observe the following:

For every N dynamic requests per second that hit our application serves, our nginx proxies hold open 20N client connections (including long-running connections, keepalives, etc.).

nginx protects our application servers by caching inbound and outbound requests in memory or on disk before sending them on. Slow clients are a non-issue, and we're doing a lot of requests a second without stressing out nginx at all. Many thousands of keepalive connections at any give time too, speeding up our application for our clients.

Does litespeed operate in the same manner?

 

[mistwang]

Yes, Litespeed is even better as nginx does not support keepalive with the backend server, at least their document saying so, while Litespeed always use keepalive with backend servers.

 

[anewday]

one master process and several worker processes. The workers are single-threaded and run under an unpriviliged user.

10,000 inactive HTTP keep-alive connections take about 2.5M memory.

http://wiki.codemongers.com/NginxOverview

LS should add several worker processes too. And that 10K connections is pretty amazing. I hope litespeed will improve to be much better than nginx.

 

[mistwang]

nginx is pretty good web server, but we do think litespeed is a much better product already. If not, we would be out of business long time ago.

Our N-CPU license works pretty much like that. the claim of 10K connections using 2.5M memory is a false advertisement, in a real world load, I doubt it can stand up to the claim and it is not difficult to prove it.

 

[anewday]

George, have you taken a look at this?

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=708332

Seems static performance is very good with nginx. I would like to see benchmarks comparing the two.

 

[mistwang]

Based on our informal test a while ago, nginx is not as fast as LSWS when serving static content, but it is faster than lighttpd. We will publish some benchmark when 4.0 release is final.

But, a few percentage difference in pure static performance does not matter in real world usage. User should look beyond that.

nginx proxy to apache is not a good solution.

 

[miracle]

How is nginx dynamic performance compared with litespeed？

 

[anewday]

According to benchmarks on the web Nginx is faster. It also more efficient in memory usage. You needn't to forget that Nginx is free comparing to Litespeed. Even our Nginx continued support package ($5/month) is more a deal than Litespeed.

Feel free to ask us questions or proceed with setup.

P.S. Nginx processing static much more faster. What about dynamics, they both using PHP FastCGI, so performance is closer, but we patch PHP with FPM (advanced process manager) so it is more flexible.

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showpost.php?p=5392229&postcount=53

 

[d3vnul]

Tested litespeed so far, i may give nginx a try also ( hopefully it works as everyone say , then i'll sure switch to it "much cheaper" )

 

[mistwang]

If you are looking for a server for serving media file, it should work fine. When come to working with hosting control panel and Apache interchangeability, LiteSpeed is the only choice.

Due to our highly optimized LSAPI protocol, suEXEC, persistent connection to external application, no other servers can match the performance, security and flexibility for serving dynamic content.

 

[anewday]

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showpost.php?p=5409030&postcount=67

Good news to those under attacks - Igor released new module ngx_limit_req_module in 0.7.21 Nginx version which allows to limit connections per IP with optional burst value. We have tested on several production servers and found results to be close to amazing!

You may set limit, say 1-2 requests per second per IP but allow that IP to burst, say 100-200 requests per second with or without delay (if that IP would try to continue bursting 503 error will be returned). Wow! We felt in love to that feature!

nginx is starting to mirror many features of litespeed. Litespeed should also add a burst value too to the connection/request throttling.

 

[anewday]

How about a benchmark against the Sun Web Server? http://www.sun.com/software/products/web_srvr/index.xml


Reduces security risk and costs
By delivering very secure code, isolating the Web server from the operating system, and adding features such as header cloaking and reverse-proxy functionality, Web Server reduces both the risk of Web server security incidents and the cost of operations.

Maximizes uptime with minimal administration
Multiprocess mode and automatic failover ensure that requests to the server are handled even when a process goes down, and that the failed process is restarted automatically - without need for administrator intervention.

Delivers 8x better performance than Apache 2.0 with Tomcat for superior application response time.

Also provides protection from distributed attacks by providing request mapping for both URIs and IP

It seems to have many nice features, hope LS will pick them up at some point.

 

[mistwang]

Thanks for the recommendation.
I think LSWS has most of those features already, and we will consistently improve our product upon that.

 

[anewday]

That's nice to hear, the anti-dos features have a lot of room for improvement.

 

[ghprod]

this is really interesting thread...

how about now ? nginx vs ls?

regards