Comments on: Benchmark: LiteSpeed vs Apache (PHP and Plain HTML)

By: ehcache.net

ehcache.net — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:17:50 +0000

Benchmark: LiteSpeed vs Apache (PHP and Plain HTML)…

So I had a play with LiteSpeed just recently. Let’s have a look at what the benchmark says. Tool used: ApacheBench, Version 2.0.40-dev apache-2.0 Benchmark object: My WordPress blog (homepage), of course I made an exact copy of the current blog you’re …

By: Johar

Johar — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 17:32:53 +0000

I am interisting but still having trouble trouble Litespeed for mys site that use Kloxo :(

By: Johar

Johar — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 17:31:45 +0000

Very interesting, i want apply Litespeed for my site that use Kloxo, but still having trouble trouble for combine with my server that use Kloxo :(

By: Turnkeye

Turnkeye — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 07:55:27 +0000

Nginx is much faster:

NginX vs LiteSpeed: Magento Benchmark Tests

http://turnkeye.com/blog/2010/.....t-magento/

By: Sam Watkins

Sam Watkins — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:22:14 +0000

I can clarify the trailing slash bit, if you don’t include it the webserver should return a Location: redirect with a new URL including the trailing slash, which means a round trip for nothing. So things will be quicker if you include it.

I am writing a simple little webserver which is outperforming litespeed and other fast servers (by a small margin at the moment).

By: Fred Wu

Fred Wu — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 07:35:22 +0000

Chris,

Thanks for your comments. Would you please clarify the URL difference in your first suggestion? AFAIK it makes no difference with or without the trailing slash.

The benchmark, as I have mentioned in the post, was not done scientifically in the sense of using equal software environment. I hope in the future I am able to conduct a more thorough benchmark. As of right now I am busy with some other stuff…

Thanks again for your comments I will definitely take them into account for the next benchmark (whenever that will be).

Cheers,
Fred

By: megaman

megaman — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 12:55:21 +0000

BTW – “Requests per second: 1.08 [#/sec] (mean)”

think that says one thing: for fast PHP, you need much CPU Power.

By: megaman

megaman — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 12:50:19 +0000

Dear Fred,

think its a rather useless comparison.

1. you should test against
ab -n50 http://url/to/my/vps/wordpress/
not against
ab -n50 http://url/to/my/vps/wordpress

2. test against really static content .html, if caching opens php process, its of course very differnt.

3. ahmm, sorry -xcache enabled as you already said…
have you tried
pecl install apc
for apache, or eaccelerator? I got different mixupped results on different machines – very interestig stuff.

Hope you will do more of it, e.g. let us know both benchs with / wothout opcode caching on bot servers…

greetings from the other end of da world,
chris

By: Benchmark: LiteSpeed vs Apache (PHP and Plain HTML)

Benchmark: LiteSpeed vs Apache (PHP and Plain HTML) — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:24:23 +0000

[...] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptRelated Posts. [How-To] Guide to Install LiteSpeed with or without Apache on LxAdmin Host-In-A-Box; WordPress Plugins Recommendation List; Notes on Choosing a PHP Framework: A Quick Comparison of CodeIgniter and Kohana. [...]

By: xooass

xooass — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:39:16 +0000

同上 nginx真的很简单的速度又快