which webserver is best(apache vs litespeed)

which webserver is best(apache vs litespeed)
Hey guys...what's your take on apache vs litespeed ?
Apache.....
++++++++++++++
If You want to buy cheap web hosting then visit http://Listfreetop.pw and select the cheapest hosting. it can be suitable for all your needs.

Top 200 best traffic exchange sites http://Listfreetop.pw/surf

list of top gpt sites
list of top ptc sites
list of top ptp sites
list of top crypto currency Wallets sites
Listfreetop.pw
Listfreetop.pw
Listfreetop.pw

+++++++++++++++

XSL.TEL - A Lonewolf Fully managed hosting provider since 2011
why?...could you explain your take on that?

free, can be optimized to match litespeed, wide range of modules and support all major web technologies ROR,django,tomcat,php,etc...
XSL.TEL - A Lonewolf Fully managed hosting provider since 2011

Litespeed is a drop in paid product (I presume you mean that version) that can replace on Apache.
Out of the box Litespeed should be faster and should also support the wide range that Mohammed H is refering to.

If you are not wanting to pay for Litespeed, you could do Apache with Nginx Reverse proxy.

Hi,

Litespeed is a drop in paid product (I presume you mean that version) that can replace on Apache.
Out of the box Litespeed should be faster and should also support the wide range that Mohammed H is refering to.
Yeah the paid version....i have seen a lot of article online benchmarking litespeed to apache and since this forum has almost all hosting masters here needed to confirm from you guys before going forward .... Are there no disadvantages or cons using the litespeed

I have used Litespeed and have had no issues as a server admin and user with cPanel/WHM.
Also the Litespeed forum can be helpful and, I believe if you get it from a 3rd party like BuycPanel you can still get support from Litespeed.

A lot of hosts also run Litespeed.
I have also tried Apache with Nginx reverse proxy on a standed Wordpress site against Litespeed (no cache used) as a server admin and Litespeed was faster loading times.
Both setups was out the box and no optimizing.

I am not aware of any cons, but you may want to wait for others to post.

Forgot to add Litespeed has a 15 day free trial, where you can test it out.
Regards,
Garry

Hey guys...what's your take on apache vs litespeed ?
https://openlitespeed.org/ is also grabbing attention of lot now a days...

just a thought..

https://openlitespeed.org/ is also grabbing attention of lot now a days...

just a thought..
I read that OpenLitespeed isn't a drop in replacement for Apache, no control panel support and can only get support via the communify forum.
Regards,
Garry

Simply put LS is better because it handles lots of connections much better thus reduces overall server load. I have tried lots of different Apache with Nginx proxy setups, and they don't make much difference at all, yes they're free, but you have to spend so much time tweaking and tweaking them it just isn't worth it for me. LS will do much more than Apache or Apache with Nginx proxy. It is worth paying extra for LS.

You may also use LSAPI without paying for LS if you have CloudLinux and CageFS enabled. cPanel has recently added LSAPI too so you may use LS without paying extra for LS, but take note that using LS Web Server directly is better followed by CloudLinux and then cPanel. LS has extra features that are not included with CloudLinux and LS from CloudLinux has extra features not included with cPanel. Best performing in the following order:

LS Web Server
LSAPI from CloudLinux
LSAPI from cPanel/WHM
Nginx standalone
Apache + Nginx/Varnish Proxy
Apache standalone
Fast Host - Cloud Hosting w/ LiteSpeed & Imunify360 Security
Backup Storage - Backup Storage w/ SFTP, SSH & cPanel Access

Simply put LS is better because it handles lots of connections much better thus reduces overall server load. I have tried lots of different Apache with Nginx proxy setups, and they don't make much difference at all, yes they're free, but you have to spend so much time tweaking and tweaking them it just isn't worth it for me. LS will do much more than Apache or Apache with Nginx proxy. It is worth paying extra for LS.

You may also use LSAPI without paying for LS if you have CloudLinux and CageFS enabled. cPanel has recently added LSAPI too so you may use LS without paying extra for LS, but take note that using LS Web Server directly is better followed by CloudLinux and then cPanel. LS has extra features that are not included with CloudLinux and LS from CloudLinux has extra features not included with cPanel. Best performing in the following order:

LS Web Server
LSAPI from CloudLinux
LSAPI from cPanel/WHM
Nginx standalone
Apache + Nginx/Varnish Proxy
Apache standalone
Great...now i'm convinced. Going for litespeed+cloudlinux+imuinify360....Done!!
Thanks guys

4. Nginx standalone
Could be #2 or #3 depending on the setup. But I would still pick LS, especially if most installs are WordPress and using LSCache (caching plugin for WordPress).

most of big web hosting companies are using litespeed right now. that could be a convincing reason.
I'm not saying apache in is not good but I'm saying litespeed is better. that means apache is also a very good choice also it's free.

Litespeed is a good server but its expensive. What I see is people licensing their Litespeed install's with the minimum resources. It takes a bunch of paid hosting accounts to just pay the bill for that monthly license so your profit margin shrinks quickly. Apache has made some improvements and if setup correctly is a very good web server offering very fast speeds. We used to run Litespeed in our shared hosting environments and tested sites speeds with Apache then Litespeed and to be honest really did not notice a drastic improvement with Litespeed over Apache with no tweaks between the tests. Just to be sure this was not scientific because the normal visitors to our websites are not running speed test all the time.

Litespeed is a good server but its expensive. What I see is people licensing their Litespeed install's with the minimum resources. It takes a bunch of paid hosting accounts to just pay the bill for that monthly license so your profit margin shrinks quickly. Apache has made some improvements and if setup correctly is a very good web server offering very fast speeds. We used to run Litespeed in our shared hosting environments and tested sites speeds with Apache then Litespeed and to be honest really did not notice a drastic improvement with Litespeed over Apache with no tweaks between the tests. Just to be sure this was not scientific because the normal visitors to our websites are not running speed test all the time.
It isn't just about the speed though. It is more easy to overload a website/server that is running on Apache with a certain type of script/coding. LS has better protection against that. LS along with the help of Imunify360/CageFS/LVE/MySQL Governer is far better setup when it comes to security and performance, IMO.

I know LS will have even better protection coming soon with a later version to help with certain types of annoying attacks.
Fast Host - Cloud Hosting w/ LiteSpeed & Imunify360 Security
Backup Storage - Backup Storage w/ SFTP, SSH & cPanel Access

Litespeed is a good server but its expensive. What I see is people licensing their Litespeed install's with the minimum resources. It takes a bunch of paid hosting accounts to just pay the bill for that monthly license so your profit margin shrinks quickly. Apache has made some improvements and if setup correctly is a very good web server offering very fast speeds. We used to run Litespeed in our shared hosting environments and tested sites speeds with Apache then Litespeed and to be honest really did not notice a drastic improvement with Litespeed over Apache with no tweaks between the tests. Just to be sure this was not scientific because the normal visitors to our websites are not running speed test all the time.
This.

I haven't used Litespeed in a long time, and when I did it was a very short amount of time, so take this for what it's worth.

But say a Litespeed license costs you $25/mo - you essentially have to be able to get $25/mo worth more customers on that server than you would a free Apache web server based server. If you're licensing cost is more than $25/mo then you have to get at least that many more customers worth accounts on that server than compared to a free Apache web server license.

I honestly don't remember the Litespeed licensing being this complicated back when I was using it and like I said I didn't use it for very long. I don't know what people are spending for Litespeed licenses now.

Litespeed may in fact be better in performance. But does it pay for itself? That's the question you have to ask. And maybe it does, I don't really know. But these are questions you have to ask yourself when choosing between Apache and Litespeed.

But does it pay for itself? That's the question you have to ask. And maybe it does, I don't really know. But these are questions you have to ask yourself when choosing between Apache and Litespeed.
I would say so. I used to look at it that way several years ago, but because of the extra features, performance, reduced server load, better-caching plugins that LS has I would say it is worth more than quadruple the amount of $25 for the same number of customers/data hosted, going by your example. So sure, you have to pay $25/month for the license, but you make that back ten times over because of how the LS/Cache works. That is how I look at it anyway.
Fast Host - Cloud Hosting w/ LiteSpeed & Imunify360 Security
Backup Storage - Backup Storage w/ SFTP, SSH & cPanel Access

It isn't just about the speed though. It is more easy to overload a website/server that is running on Apache with a certain type of script/coding. LS has better protection against that. LS along with the help of Imunify360/CageFS/LVE/MySQL Governer is far better setup when it comes to security and performance, IMO.

I know LS will have even better protection coming soon with a later version to help with certain types of annoying attacks.
I don't disagree with you but here is the scoop or my perspective. The current cost for the license that you should purchase if you are advertising Litespeed hosting is $92/mo. Average cost of a shared hosting account is $3.00/mo. 92/3 is around 30 hosting accounts you have to sell just to pay for the license. So most will only license the minimum so your benefits of Litespeed drops significantly.

At that point you will have consumed any advantages that Litespeed offers as far as server load reduction. You would be better of sticking with Apache that is free. Since most customers that just want to host a website have no idea what Litespeed is and the benefits. Selling hosting is very competitive so those 30 hosting accounts will cost marketing, support and more just to sell them to break even. You might as well just sell the 30 accounts to pay for cPanel, power and bandwidth.

I love Litespeed I do not doubt its benefits it is the cost to benefit ratio that I have a problem with.

I would say so. I used to look at it that way several years ago, but because of the extra features, performance, reduced server load, better-caching plugins that LS has I would say it is worth more than quadruple the amount of $25 for the same number of customers/data hosted, going by your example. So sure, you have to pay $25/month for the license, but you make that back ten times over because of how the LS/Cache works. That is how I look at it anyway.
If it had to choose, it recommends installing it in a VPS, or it is not recommended.

Is it better to use it on a server?

thanks
I don't disagree with you but here is the scoop or my perspective. The current cost for the license that you should purchase if you are advertising Litespeed hosting is $92/mo. Average cost of a shared hosting account is $3.00/mo. 92/3 is around 30 hosting accounts you have to sell just to pay for the license. So most will only license the minimum so your benefits of Litespeed drops significantly.

At that point you will have consumed any advantages that Litespeed offers as far as server load reduction. You would be better of sticking with Apache that is free. Since most customers that just want to host a website have no idea what Litespeed is and the benefits. Selling hosting is very competitive so those 30 hosting accounts will cost marketing, support and more just to sell them to break even. You might as well just sell the 30 accounts to pay for cPanel, power and bandwidth.

I love Litespeed I do not doubt its benefits it is the cost to benefit ratio that I have a problem with.
I see where you are coming from, and I certainly wouldn't be complaining if LS reduced the price, but what do you mean by this

The current cost for the license that you should purchase if you are advertising Litespeed hosting is $92/mo
Says who?

Web Host Elite at $92 is not much different to the other licences, only you can use any number of cores as you like, but that is really only needed if running some high spec server with 32 CPUs. But if you have such server spec in the first place, then you have plenty of mem, CPU and storage to host more customers to make paying the extra $92/month worth it!

At max, you would need Web Host Enterprise at $65 if using high spec server, but the Web Host Professional at $46 with two workers is fine for 8-16 CPU servers. Plus LSCache is included in the cost of LS Web Server. The LSCache plugin is better compared to the free alternative caching plugins. So in that case paying around $46/month is worth the extra security (protection against attacks thus reduces the server load) and performance benefits. Or sure, use Apache instead and spend the $46 on a beefier server, but even then LS does things that Apache can't protection-wise. Therefore, overall, I think LS is worth the money. Again, I wouldn't complain if it were slightly cheaper. But I'm ok with your take on it. I know many providers at WHT alone who have switched between Apache and LiteSpeed over the years like a yo-yo. Usually, they end up going back with LiteSpeed.

CPanel/CloudLinux also promotes LS. Kind of industry standard now and 8/10 all three of them work great together. The bug/conflicts can be annoying sometimes, but not anymore annoying than messing about with Apache/Nginx which is not supported by cPanel.

Interested thread. I'd like to hear more about what others think about this too. I bet LS could reduce pricing a little more if they wanted to, but there is no competition, and so I think they don't need to.

[QUOTE= I bet LS could reduce pricing a little more if they wanted to, but there is no competition, and so I think they don't need to.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you, the numbers are bit different. I don't think anybody thinks their software does not work well. Nobody is saying that. But I am absolutely sure that they could lower their prices and sales would go up significantly. Maybe they don't want to sell more licenses because their support requirements would go up. So that is why they have kept the cost up for years.

We usually ran I think the Web Host Enterprise license when we were using Litespeed even became a partner. I think it was still around $65 a month maybe a little more per node. Never really saw the increase in sales due to offering Litespeed hosting and nobody left when we stopped. Just the cost of each server went up and profits went down. I really did not see the improvements vs cost that is offered or expected so we discontinued the use of litespeed. Of course this was several years ago so their software may have improved. But definitely not ready to get jump back on that bandwagon.

Even at the lowest cost of license that is still 10+ hosting accounts you have to sell to make up the loses. But then you are over advertised and underselling your customers.

Never really saw the increase in sales due to offering Litespeed hosting and nobody left when we stopped. Just the cost of each server went up and profits went down. I really did not see the improvements vs cost that is offered or expected so we discontinued the use of litespeed. Of course this was several years ago so their software may have improved. But definitely not ready to get jump back on that bandwagon.
This pretty much echos my experience as well.

The same question can be asked about other products that "you just have to have" on your servers. Sometimes I think we all get brainwashed a bit into "everybody says it's true so it has to be true" rather than actually testing it ourselves.

depends on your tweaking expertise. But if you have budget then litespeed comes first.

Apache has a lot of changes with version 2.4.x and inspired from Nginx code.

If you know how to optimize it, Apache + Cloudlinux's ( Mod_Lsapi ) will do wonder.
Specially 4 You ||| Elevate Your Sites
.
JoneSolutions.Com ( Jones.Solutions or Jones.Hosting ) is on the net 24/7 providing stable and reliable web hosting solutions and services since 2001

The combination of LS + LSCache provides good performance. The price factor is upto you, If you want a quick drop in solution, then LS.

You definitely need Cloudlinux. So you might as well give Apache + CloudLinx lsapi with optimizations, a try.
BountySite: Democratizing Website Security

I tried out LiteSpeed, I fell in love with it for a few reasons:

- I have customers with a rather weird traffic pattern, Apache (even with mpm_event) had issues handling some traffic spikes due to the customer would have mobile (slow bandwidth) devices that would play some banner videos, so we end up with rather long running "connections", Apache would simply reach the limits (can continue to increase max clients .. but meh) - LiteSpeed handles this problem super well due to the real event-driven architecture, and handling thousands of connections is a breeze.
- If you're a shared hosting provider, you're probably (hopefully) using some mod_security rulesets, these rules can (at times) be rather consuming in CPU resources, I had servers that again due to traffic patterns, would just sit and eat up CPU due to Apache handling modsec rules - often for requests that make no sense (such as static files) - LiteSpeed handles these rules in a bit different manner, so static requests won't actually get any rules applied (since they're static), so you easily cut your processing by 80-90% (in many cases), additionally, the engine is very efficient, so the same rules will consume *a lot* less resources anyway.
- Real graceful restarts? Not much more to say about it  But I hate when Apache stops serving traffic, even for just a couple of seconds

Additionally, as a hosting provider it allows me to offer a rock solid caching solution for my customers, a solution that I as a provider can learn about, and understand it - so it's easier to support, because you know how it actually works.

Oh, and I like the fact they offer QUIC, TLSv1.3 and in LiteSpeed 5.4, they'll also bring a recaptcha function that can help during hammering of requests to stop bad actors in the process. I also like that they have a community with fellow hosting providers and people that loves fast sites (some people don't value this, but I do!).

For a bunch of VMs I run, I also decided to move from nginx to either OpenLiteSpeed or LiteSpeed depending on the hardware configuration and the use-case for the VM.
Hosting4Real - European (NL/FR) High Performance Web Hosting

Hey guys...what's your take on apache vs litespeed ?
If you are looking to speed things up/reduce load without paying a lot of money i recommend taking a look at engintron.com its a free plugin for cPanel (NGINX reverse caching proxy in front of Apache), it is very good, i have been using it for some time now. Search WHT "LiteSpeed vs Engintron" for other user feedback.
Premium SSD Web Hosting & VPS https://rwbhosting.com 24/7 Live Chat Support!
Bulk Email Allowed (opt-in only), Custom rDNS, up to 13 IPv4 Addresses
Locations: AU, CA, PL, UK, US - Xeon CPU - NVMe SSD - 480Gbps DDoS Protection

Nginx is the fastest growing web server used by almost all high traffic websites. The only drawback it has is that it is not a drop in replacement of Apache httpd, which is a defacto standard when it comes to web server. Not all app developers provide support for deploying app in Nginx ,but in such cases we can always use the power of Nginx as a great reverse proxy and Loadbalancer and proxy to httpd. For webapps that support deployment in Nginx we can use Nginx natively . In the web hosting world it is mostly control panels that decide which sofware is used and most mainline cntrol panels doesnt support Nginx out of the box .

In short Nginx,Apache httpd,Litespeed are all good and are different softwares for the same use case and have their own pros and cons . You must evaluate each and coose that is right for your business and importantly that is best for Return-of-investment in your business.
A U T O M 8 N . C O M
cPanel plugin for Active-Active redundancy,High Availability and Native Nginx
DDOS-BruteForce-BadBot mitigation, System Monitoring using Netdata, cPanel Backup using Borg/Borgmatic
User Friendly,Automated! ,Read the Docs -- https://autom8n.com/docs/

With license or not I guess you should switch back and forth back and forth from one to the other with no harm other wise to me is pointless.

Apache is the most popular as well as the oldest free server. Litespeed is a commercial product. The greatest thing about Litespeed is that the server is really able to handle much more traffic than Apache.

The company claims that a single Litespeed server can handle the same amount of traffic as two Apache servers.

is hosting the olympics worth it
trafficandsales4.me
maple-hosting.com
host ceo forum metro tv
host gsm forum
a domain in biology
domain hours
make money jay worthy
host quickbooks on aws
host elevation fail