Skip to content
Register

Apache is dead, switch to OpenLiteSpeed now

Web Hosting Locked by steveipw 6 replies 398 views
This thread is locked — new replies are not accepted. (Necro-bump on a two-year-old thread)
steveipw

Member OP

11 #1

Ran WordPress on both. Same hardware, same PHP version, same MariaDB.

Results:

  • Apache + mod_php: 847 req/s, 78ms p95
  • OpenLiteSpeed + LSCache: 4,200 req/s, 12ms p95

For that money you get 5x throughput. Case closed, right?

Well. Someone in Discord pointed out the LiteSpeed Cache plugin does server-side page caching by default. My "Apache" test had no page cache at all. Not W3 Total Cache, not WP Rocket, nothing.

So now I'm running clean tests: php-fpm + nginx + fastcgi cache vs OLS + LSCache vs Apache + mod_php + proper opcache tuning.

Apache isn't dead but my interest is. Thread for numbers when I have them.

zfs send | zfs receive. repeat.
AL

Member

#2

#apache #isnt #dead #you #just #didnt #configure #it #properly #hashtag #nginx #hashtag #benchmarks #hashtag #lies #hashtag #damn #lies #hashtag #statistics

cpanelliw780

Member

shared hosting survivor

#3

Yeah the lscache thing is basically cheating I did the same test last year and felt real dumb when someone pointed it out Apache with event mpm and php-fpm actually holds up fine for most hosts the problem is everyone runs prefork because thats what cpanel defaults to and then wonders why its slow Honestly for shared hosting apache still wins on htaccess alone customers love their rewrite rules

RAJ

Member

#4

Guys, real question: what's the margin on OLS vs Apache? CPanel licensing is per-account, OLS is per-server but the cache plugin has weird terms for hosting providers. Any leads?

Also @steveipw what hardware? Used or auction? Their benchmark might not apply to my Atom C2550 boxes, recieved 40 of them last month from CloudCone liquidation

your margin is my opportunity
ReykjavikFilch

Member

CDN skeptic

#5

Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much, for whence came this notion that a web server must be "dead" merely because another, younger and more fleet of foot, doth serve cached pages with greater celerity? In mine own experience, which stretcheth back to the days when ye olde server ran NCSA httpd upon a SparcStation, I have seen many a technology pronounced deceased only to persist, zombie-like, in the darkened corners of data centers wherefore legacy applications dwell and system administrators fear to tread, and so it shall be with Apache, I wager, long after we have all switched to whatever ephemeral container orchestration platform next captures the fancy of the Hacker News masses.

CH

Member

#6

Same here, I also forgot to enable any cache on apache first time

engzur

Member

BGP Dreamer

#7

4,200 req/s with page cache isn't a fair comparison

Thread closed

Replies are closed on this thread. Necro-bump on a two-year-old thread.