Apache (OS) vs LiteSpeed (OS) vs Apache (OS) + Varnish (Caching)

Portal Home > Knowledgebase > Articles Database > Apache (OS) vs LiteSpeed (OS) vs Apache (OS) + Varnish (Caching)

Posted by HostXNow_Chris, 10-09-2011, 05:02 AM
It was this thread that got me interested in which setup was faster. I ran the tests on a VPS using the following setup ... cPanel/WHM 11.30.4 (build 6) RELEASE CentOS 5.7 i686 virtuozzo on vps Apache 2.2 PHP 5.2.17 MySQL 5.1 suPHP/suEXEC MPM Prefork 512MB Guaranteed RAM I also included the Apache config. See file named prefork.yaml All tests were using default settings (out of the box). Varnish Settings Cache Time To Live (seconds): 20 File Cache TTL (minutes): 20 Memory Cache (100M,1G,etc): 64M Large File Caching: None LiteSpeed Caching Turned Off. ======= Results ======= 10 - 50 Apache = http://loadimpact.com/result/www.myt...5d1f6ee0b77ae3 Apache + Varnish = http://loadimpact.com/result/www.myt...a98bc9c9b1e756 LiteSpeed = http://loadimpact.com/result/www.myt...16a058d95a1310 The screenshots and CVS files can be downloaded from here http://www.hostxnow.com/09-10-2011-0...50-Results.rar ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 10 - 250 Apache = http://loadimpact.com/result/www.myt...421e44d41b1687 Apache + Varnish = http://loadimpact.com/result/www.myt...7d90d902840803 LiteSpeed = http://loadimpact.com/result/www.myt...7e953cdc4318ce The screenshots and CVS files can be downloaded from here http://www.hostxnow.com/09-10-2011-0...50-Results.rar Varnish is clearly faster. But to make test 100% fair you would need to do Apache (OS) + Varnish (Caching) vs LiteSpeed (OS) + LiteSpeed Caching enabled. I also know you can tune Apache, Varnish and LiteSpeed to give better results, but this test was just to see which setup performs better out of the box. I could do with running the same tests again, but only with LiteSpeed Caching enabled/matching the same settings used in the cPanel Varnish Plugin. Which settings do you suggest I use in LiteSpeed Caching to try and match the ones used in the default config in cPanel Varnish Plugin? Last edited by HostXNow_Chris; 10-09-2011 at 05:12 AM. Reason: added links
Posted by Ixape, 10-09-2011, 05:34 AM
Was expecting LiteSpeed to come out the fastest - thanks for the post!
Posted by HostXNow_Chris, 10-09-2011, 06:06 AM
LiteSpeed will probably be faster than Apache (OS) + Varnish (Caching) or at least be around the same speed once LiteSpeed Caching is enabled. PS I forgot to mention that MySQL service went down for the Apache 10 - 250 Rampup test. MySQL service crashed when it got to 16 seconds @ 250 clients. Using Varnish cPanel Plugin with Apache definitely helps prevent any of the services from crashing. Big props to Joe from Unixy.net for the cPanel Varnish Plugin. Last edited by HostXNow_Chris; 10-09-2011 at 06:14 AM. Reason: typo
Posted by YIFY, 10-09-2011, 09:12 AM
thanks for doing the tests
Posted by net, 10-09-2011, 09:14 AM
Moved > Hosting Security and Technology .
Posted by DDoSProtected, 10-09-2011, 09:16 AM
Thanks for doing the test, appreciated
Posted by bergholt, 10-09-2011, 12:16 PM
Please note that LiteSpeed's caching engine was turned off for the test. I'm confident LiteSpeed would've outperformed both Apache setups if it's dynamic cache had been functional.
Posted by bergholt, 10-09-2011, 12:18 PM
I'm pretty surprised that Apache could handle 250 concurrent connections/users with only 512mb ram on a Wordpress setup. Re. your last questions. What are the ttl settings for Varnish for the default config in cPanel?
Posted by techjr, 10-09-2011, 12:51 PM
Were you using the litespeed free trial?
Posted by HostXNow_Chris, 10-09-2011, 02:04 PM
I don't think it did. MySQL service went down I can do the test again to see when it went down. This ... ? I used Get Free 15-Day Trial (2-CPU) License from http://www.litespeedtech.com/litespe...downloads.html