Litespeed vs Apache

[bahram0110]

Hello
This is my experience with litespeed in last 14 days:

Compability:
Litespeed is not fully compatible with CloudLinux and this is very bad! it seams that users don't use any ram resource. All ram used by lsws process!
-Apache is compatible with it.
Litespeed is almost compatible with apache configuration and .htaccess.
but webserver should restart to find any parked domain added! this is not good. apache binary wrapper not worked for me.

Speed:
for me so far, Apache is very fast webserver. It process requests in milliseconds
Litespeed response a bit slower. you can see this : http://www.litespeedtech.com/support/forum/showthread.php?t=6515

Server Load:
As litespeed is not compatible with CloudLinux, It cause server to be goes down with some accounts. I know connection limit and ... in lsws but they can not restrict huge usage websites. they limit end users only.
when I use apache server load is always below 1 (with more than 2000 connections to apache)
when I use lsws, server load goes to 3 to 6 with about 300 HTTP USED in realtime stat

Security :
Litespeed is more secure for amateur users. It prevent symlink and access to some directories.
All security tips can be applied to apache for pro users.

Price :
Litespeed is not free
Apache is free


My choice:
Unfortunately I forced to turn back to apache.

I hope you don't delete this topic and use it to enhance Litespeed features.

Thank you

 

[NiteWave]

the main issue looks to be issues related to cloudlinux. since we're discussed on forum for some days, I'd like to review and summarize your case after a further investigation. I can ssh to your server to help you identify all the issues if it's ok at your side.

 

[bobykus]

Well,

Not sure why you experiencing any of issues with CloudLinux.
BTW, what CloudLinux do you use - LVE or CageFS? We use LVE
and have all the features working well. Users are use RAM, CPU and Disk.
And yes, it can restrict a huge site CPU wise, process wise etc.
Even I/O wise with hybrid kernel. And yes, LiteSpeed faster then Apache,
and yes, you can disable symlinks if owner not much and customers can not enable it back via htacess as apache users can.

Hope LiteSpeed Support help you to resolve all your issues and we will get another great story of success

 

[pardis]

When CL released in first time we used it , after 1 year we use LS as main webserver and we working with LS and CL over 2 years .
we haven't any problem with CL and LS and both work fine.

 

[webizen]

Hello
This is my experience with litespeed in last 14 days:

Compability:
Litespeed is not fully compatible with CloudLinux and this is very bad! it seams that users don't use any ram resource. All ram used by lsws process!
-Apache is compatible with it.
Litespeed is almost compatible with apache configuration and .htaccess.
but webserver should restart to find any parked domain added! this is not good. apache binary wrapper not worked for me.

...

https://store.litespeedtech.com/store/knowledgebase.php?action=displayarticle&id=32

 

[vacancy]

misleading, funny, an irrelevant issue with incorrect information.