OpenLiteSpeed Server

Mayhem30

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 26
Messages: 459

Any plans on adding OpenLiteSpeed server to the port system?

Apparently, this out performs Apache and Nginx.

 
OP
M

Mayhem30

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 26
Messages: 459

It's disappointing to see this ticket has been open for 2.5 years, but thanks for letting me know.
 

mer

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 293
Messages: 496

This is where interest, desire and skill could lead to a new maintainer, eh?
 

Geezer

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 317
Messages: 589

I always thought that lightspeed was a closed source version of nginx that used the configuration of apache.

So what is openlightspeed? An open source of a closed source of an nginx apache mish mash.

I am going to stick with apache24.
 
OP
M

Mayhem30

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 26
Messages: 459

Before you make that decision, have a look at the benchmarks. OpenLiteSpeed runs circles around Apache (for static and php files).

 

richardtoohey2

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 301
Messages: 611

Are those independant benchmarks? The URL suggests not. :-/ But I've not looked. :sssh:

But no harm in having lots of choice, just have to find someone with the time and inclination to make a port and maintain it, or pay someone to do that.
 

drhowarddrfine

Son of Beastie

Reaction score: 2,295
Messages: 4,276

fwiw, I got this working on my system a couple of years ago. It wasn't hard but there was one setting somewhere that solved the issue I had compiling it but I don't recall why I stopped messing with it.
 
OP
M

Mayhem30

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 26
Messages: 459

This server looks so promising. I wonder why there is no interest in it?

All the other server software is on the ports system.
 

hardworkingnewbie

Active Member

Reaction score: 151
Messages: 154

This server looks so promising. I wonder why there is no interest in it?

All the other server software is on the ports system.
Have you ever heared the idiom "boring is good?" Apache is boring, it's a well known and understood web server, being around for ages, which of course has its quirks, but does its job. Nginx is quite newer, having replaced Lighttpd, but basically is the same.

Why there is not much interest in it, is quite simple to explain:

1. most of us probably will never have web sites which really do need such a sheer performance which Open Litespeed claims being able to deliver. So for most of us the theoretical improvement in reality is just useless for the few page visits a day we've got, so they stick with what they know instead of having to learn a new tool. And the ones of us who really do need such a performance know how to achieve it without Open Litespeed.
2. Many consider the benchmarks to be misleading and done by the company itself, and have so far not seen independent benchmarks yet.
3. Open Litespeed is basically a feature wise stripped down version of their commercial product. Apache is always the full deal.

So for most of us the decision will be something like this:

1. If we want to don't have a .htaccess headache, rewriting these rules to Nginx - take Apache.
2. When fast delivery is necessary or just having a server light on resources, take Nginx.
3. If even faster delivery is required, take Varnish.

Something like that.
 

diizzy

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 164
Messages: 536

Like with most benchmarks performance may not be the same/as expected given your specific workload however it may give you an idea of what to expect. Having a quick look benchmarks are all over the place, sometimes favouring NGINX other times OpenLiteSpeed. The only consistent result I would make out is that HTTP/3 is faster using OLS at least for now it seems however that's just one of the many (probably few) tasks your webserver will do. Also keep in mind that software may perform differently depending on OS, compiler, optimization, architechture etc. Efficient software and "free" performance are always a nice things but if you're going to base your choice solely on that parameter you should to do some benchmarking on your own.

As a sidenote, software that interests people tends to get ported quickly however in this case there's only one distro that packages OpenLiteSpeed currently which makes me think that there's a reason behind it however I didn't spend time looking into it.
 

Vull

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 372
Messages: 646

I've used Apache for over 12 years with very little attention to it. It's very stable, low-maintenance, and fast enough for my purposes. It links to every version of PHP, PostgreSQL, and MySQL I've ever tried to use with it, and I understand how it works. I'll stick with it until it starts giving me problems -- and I seriously doubt that it will. I also like the Apache licensing model.
 

BSD-Kitsune

Active Member

Reaction score: 76
Messages: 181

I always thought that lightspeed was a closed source version of nginx that used the configuration of apache.

So what is openlightspeed? An open source of a closed source of an nginx apache mish mash.

I am going to stick with apache24.

No, litespeed/OpenLitespeed are webservers that are broadly Apache-compatible (and probably have roots in shared hosting environments, where .htaccess or another method of per-user config is necessary) and have their own APIs for interacting with PHP and other CGI langs/scripts. I've only ever used Litespeed, and that was at a job I stopped being at in 2019, but it did really well for certain use-cases. For static sites, it was quite nice, and some PHP sites based around it, it did better than NGINX in some edge cases.

I use NGINX personally. I can't stand httpd config files and find Apache to be a bloated program that belongs in the bin, but I welcome stuff like this. OpenLitespeed would be nice for the people who need it!

I've used Apache for over 12 years with very little attention to it. It's very stable, low-maintenance, and fast enough for my purposes. It links to every version of PHP, PostgreSQL, and MySQL I've ever tried to use with it, and I understand how it works. I'll stick with it until it starts giving me problems -- and I seriously doubt that it will. I also like the Apache licensing model.

One thing to remember in software like this is just because your config works for you doesn't mean that someone else may desire something different. If you ran a forum that hosted more than 2,000 unique viewers a day (plus around 100 daily regulars who use search and other CPU-intensive things) you will need in many cases to scale and customize. It's good to have as many configs as possible in the chamber to tackle such things.
 

Vull

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 372
Messages: 646

No, litespeed/OpenLitespeed are webservers that are broadly Apache-compatible (and probably have roots in shared hosting environments, where .htaccess or another method of per-user config is necessary) and have their own APIs for interacting with PHP and other CGI langs/scripts. I've only ever used Litespeed, and that was at a job I stopped being at in 2019, but it did really well for certain use-cases. For static sites, it was quite nice, and some PHP sites based around it, it did better than NGINX in some edge cases.

I use NGINX personally. I can't stand httpd config files and find Apache to be a bloated program that belongs in the bin, but I welcome stuff like this. OpenLitespeed would be nice for the people who need it!



One thing to remember in software like this is just because your config works for you doesn't mean that someone else may desire something different. If you ran a forum that hosted more than 2,000 unique viewers a day (plus around 100 daily regulars who use search and other CPU-intensive things) you will need in many cases to scale and customize. It's good to have as many configs as possible in the chamber to tackle such things.
More power to you. I used Apache to run an SMF forum for over a year without any configuration problems or performance issues, although our average loads were considerably smaller -- maybe half of yours on average, although some days were considerably busier. As I stated above, I'd be willing to consider alternatives but only if it ever became a problem, which it hasn't to date. I have nothing against Nginx, and would probably prefer it over OpenLiteSpeed, but in lieu of further study, I'm not tossing either of them in the trash.
 
Top