LiteSpeed vs. OpenLiteSpeed vs. nginx vs. Apache 2.2 vs. Apache 2.4!

[lsmichael]

The battle you've been waiting for!

We just released a couple of new benchmarks (small static files) for LiteSpeed Enterprise, OpenLiteSpeed, nginx, Apache 2.2 prefork, and Apache 2.4 event MPM. Enterprise and OpenLiteSpeed whipped everyone else, of course.

Summary blog post

Small static file benchmark

Small static file (HTTPS) benchmark

 

These are just the first in a series of tests we're releasing. (Small PHP files should be soon behind.) We really want to hear feedback on these tests. Do you not believe them? Do you have issues with our configurations? What happened with Apache 2.4 with event MPM? What do you think? What kinds of benchmarks do you want to see?

 

Looking forward to it.

 

m

 

[KuJoe]

Any chance of adding Lighttpd to the mix? I foresee it picking up some market share with nginx's recent announcement.

 

[nunim]

Any chance of adding Lighttpd to the mix? I foresee it picking up some market share with nginx's recent announcement.

??? What announcement?   Lighttpd seems to have died off in recent years,  I still using it for some things, mainly serving static files.

 

[KuJoe]

??? What announcement?   Lighttpd seems to have died off in recent years,  I still using it for some things, mainly serving static files.

nginx is going to a paid model with their free version removing features. Lighttpd doesn't get updated as often but it's still getting security updates.

EDIT - It looks like they aren't limiting the HTTP features according to their chart so I might be completely off base.

 

[Dylan]

nginx is going to a paid model with their free version removing features.

Nothing's getting removed from the free version. The commercial version adds a few features (like an application delivery controller) that the free version's never had.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2047200/nginx-web-server-goes-commercial-with-new-release.html

Anyways if OpenLiteSpeed had .htaccess compatibility I'd switch over in a heartbeat.

 

[texteditor]

Yeah the 'Premium' nginx just has a ton of features people had been using for years via modules, 3rd-party daemons, etc. all unified into a more all-in-one enterprise-y product

 

[budi1413]

Yeah the 'Premium' nginx just has a ton of features people had been using for years via modules, 3rd-party daemons, etc. all unified into a more all-in-one enterprise-y product

You know what, most enterprise people don't want to use free software because they think free software is not good.

 

[drmike]

I love these comparisons.  Always taken with a side of real sea salt.   

OpenLite, still not putting out a Debian repository ready to use version, right?   Adoption would shoot up some if they did.  

Also, OpenLite, does it have a web-based administration?  

 

[eva2000]

drmike, OLS has some admin gui console as LWS

Nice benchmarks !

 

Curious as you're using ApacheBench, which version of ApacheBench was used as i see your logs have ./ab_new ?? i see in the logs using ApacheBench, Version 2.3 <$Revision: 1430300 $> so from Apache 2.4.6 ?

 

I ask as from my limited testing last year with ApacheBench, the version used can make a difference i.e ApacheBench included with Apache 2.4.x is faster than ApacheBench included in Apache 2.2.x for all web servers I tested, LiteSPeed, Apache and even Nginx http://vbtechsupport.com/1835/

 

Also, would be better to test at higher concurrency levels i.e. 250-500 and with Nginx 1.5.6 as well with more average/normal static file sizes

 

Digging into config files, I noticed LSW vs OLS, the inMemBufSize differ with LSW = 120MB and OLS = 60MB ? Would make a difference ?

 

Also seems OLS static file gzip compression level was higher at 6 versus LSW at level 1.

 

-    <gzipCompressLevel>1</gzipCompressLevel>  
-    <compressibleTypes>text/*,application/x-javascript,application/javascript,application/xml</compressibleTypes>  
+    <gzipCompressLevel>6</gzipCompressLevel>  
+    <compressibleTypes>text/html</compressibleTypes>  

 

[MannDude]

Nice read, but would be good to see a test done from a unbiased source.

Whenever I scrolled over the links and saw they were on the Litespeed site, I already knew the results. I'm not saying I don't believe them, just saying I'd feel more comfortable accepting them as fact if all done by someone with no bias. Litespeed is certainly good, though.

Lighttpd seems to have died off in recent years,  I still using it for some things, mainly serving static files.

vpsBoard uses Lighttpd, for now at least. May replace it with Nginx in the coming month or so with some planned upgrades, though only because I'm more familiar with Nginx.

 

[drmike]

I am all for non-Apache stuff.. I hate Apache configs. 

Glad to see web configs/status/etc. in these servers.  Shortlisted for experimenting!

 

[peterw]

Any chance of adding Lighttpd to the mix? I foresee it picking up some market share with nginx's recent announcement.

I would like to see the results of lighttpd too.

Nice read, but would be good to see a test done from a unbiased source.

Whenever I scrolled over the links and saw they were on the Litespeed site, I already knew the results. I'm not saying I don't believe them, just saying I'd feel more comfortable accepting them as fact if all done by someone with no bias. Litespeed is certainly good, though.

I stopped reading on

Highlights
LSWS Enterprise showed the greatest gains with keep-alive connections enabled:

HTTP

• 245% faster than Apache 2.2 with pre-fork MPM
• 533% faster than Apache 2.4
• 67% faster than nginx

 

[fisle]

If Litespeed is so much better than the rest, why have the big players been moving on to Nginx?

Needs more unbiased tests. Either way, some benchmarks are better than no benchmarks at all.

 

[eva2000]

benchmarks didn't suprise me much from my own experience and benchmarks, LiteSpeed > Nginx but not by as much as these benchmarks above showed..   probably due to different parameters and fact i use Centmin Mod based Nginx which is slightly tuned better http://centminmod.com/benchmarks_nginx_openlitespeed_cherokee.html

If Litespeed is so much better than the rest, why have the big players been moving on to Nginx?

Needs more unbiased tests. Either way, some benchmarks are better than no benchmarks at all.

open source / free is most cited reason + LiteSpeed Enterprise's no Adult content policy (hence why OpenLiteSpeed without such content policy + open source is interesting)

 

[lsmichael]

Anyways if OpenLiteSpeed had .htaccess compatibility I'd switch over in a heartbeat.

Oh, man. This is what I get for being busy. Just going through the thread now. Feel free to think I'm an idiot if I repeat somethign that's already been said.

We're debating some sort of .htaccess compatibility for OpenLiteSpeed. It's still a little far away, but we're eyeing. It's wouldn't be as nice as Enterprise (.htaccess compatibility is one of Enterprise's main selling points), but we'd like to put together an option that speaks to people looking for less hassle. Perhaps a function that allows you to check .htaccess files and include them with a restart. If you're running a few web applications, this shouldn't be a huge deal. Just perform a restart when you upgrade your applications. But it would keep people from offering shared hosting on OpenLiteSpeed.

m

 

[lsmichael]

You know what, most enterprise people don't want to use free software because they think free software is not good.

I'm really not sure about this. I mean, there are plenty of big enterprises running free software.

Wait, what am I saying? I mean, Yeah! They should all run LSWS Enterprise!

 

[lsmichael]

I would like to see the results of lighttpd too.

Sorry, but I don't think this is going to happen. Yes, I know vpsBoard is running lighttpd, but they're just not a big enough competitor. I mean, people earlier in the thread thought they were dead. Configuring the web servers is the biggest time suck in these benchmarks and I don't think it would be worth the time to add lighttpd.

Would love to see the benchmark, if someone else wants to do it, though!

Oops, something just came up. I'll try to be back soon. Thanks for the feedback everyone!

 

[adly]

We're debating some sort of .htaccess compatibility for OpenLiteSpeed. It's still a little far away, but we're eyeing. It's wouldn't be as nice as Enterprise (.htaccess compatibility is one of Enterprise's main selling points), but we'd like to put together an option that speaks to people looking for less hassle. Perhaps a function that allows you to check .htaccess files and include them with a restart. If you're running a few web applications, this shouldn't be a huge deal. Just perform a restart when you upgrade your applications. But it would keep people from offering shared hosting on OpenLiteSpeed.

It seems like an awful lot of effort to avoid giving people what they actually want. I understand you're afraid of canabalising sales of the Enterprise product, but crippling the open one isn't the right way to go about it.


I for one can say I have no interest in using an intentionally crippled product or supporting anyone who releases such a product.


--Adam

 

[lsmichael]

OpenLite, still not putting out a Debian repository ready to use version, right?   Adoption would shoot up some if they did.  

 Not yet. But this nice Italian guy has set up one: http://apt.balocco.name/

 

[lsmichael]

It seems like an awful lot of effort to avoid giving people what they actually want. I understand you're afraid of canabalising sales of the Enterprise product, but crippling the open one isn't the right way to go about it.


I for one can say I have no interest in using an intentionally crippled product or supporting anyone who releases such a product.


--Adam

I have certainly heard this point of view before, and, if that's your view, so be it. We still think there's a market for a product that runs as fast as, if not faster than, nginx, but has some level of .htaccess compatibility and an easy-to-use GUI.

m