Litespeed better than Apache?

Hi!

I actually have my server and I heard about Litespeed and on their website they say that its better than Apache any review about Litespeed?

 

I'd like to see benchmarks using real world situations, instead of being unrealistic like the benchmarks I saw.

Somthing worth considering when comparing Apache to other webservers right now.

 

litespeed performs a bit better than Apache in most instances. But something to keep in mind is litespeed has a restrictive terms of service and it also isn't cheap. For the prices it has for multi cpu systems you probably could purchase another machine for that price to balance the load which would be better anyways.

 

http://www.lighttpd.net/

That's a good web server.

 

My server runs lightspeed, and we used to have Apache, but...

Apache couldnt hold a SMALL DDoS attack against the server, and crashed!.

LightSpeed now, holds HUGE DDoS attacks, without crashing, so the site is still working.. but slower.. and sometimes the site dies, but the process is still running, and handling all those connections until the firewall bans them...

now security wise, we recently found a bug in the lightspeed webserver, and was able to get ANY file source code, we could get unparsed PHP for example, as clear text files... so that didnt give lightspeed a good `security` check.. but its all solved now

conclusion,

I recommend LightSpeed webserver :]. but hey, if your site doesnt use that much PHP parsing, or you dont go under ddos attacks, then stick to apache..

 

Lighttpd sucks at serving php pages. Definitely not recommended if you have a php powered site.

 

If your site can't handle a ddos attack under apache then chances are there is something wrong with your application or you have borked config settings in your install. There will always be an answer in buying new machines or upgrading software but this isn't always financially viable.

abdussamad is right too, Lighttpd isn't as good as apache for serving php pages. Its awesome for serving static content though. If you ever need to run a static server I'd recommend you use lighttpd for that.

 

@DarkMindZ
What do you mean with lightspeed? Where is the provider URL?

 

my provider?

here is my site darkmindz.com and thedefaced.org , they are on a dedicated server... the security vul we found is :

http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/4556

 

It is very difficult to define what's good.Yes.

For a Web Server, 'good' may mean: Performance, Scalability, Security, Availability, Compliance to standards, Flexibility, Platform requirements, Manageability, Price, and much more.

Overall, Apache is the most-used and probably best Web Server, but Apache can't optimize so many criteria at the same time. So, there are some products can surpass Apache in some aspects.

Both the lighttpd and the LiteSpeed are Lightweight web servers, they are optimized for handling many simultaneous connections. And the typical usage of lightweight web servers is as an off-load server to push out static content .

If your site is happy with apache, use apache. If your site has too many connections or under DDOS attack, you may want to try lighttpd (fourth-most-used web server, according to Netcraft).