5/21/2023 0 Comments Litespeed web server compare![]() The #1 reason for me is the free LiteSpeed Cache plugin (compatible with only LS/OLS servers). What’s the real benefit of LiteSpeed/OpenLiteSpeed over NGINX? Caching dynamic requests, security features (that decrease resource drain from DDOS attacks), and more. LiteSpeed can do many things that produce faster end result in real-world use. LiteSpeed Enterprise (paid version) is maybe 3-5% faster at most. OpenLiteSpeed (free version) is like 1-2% faster at most. I’m a diehard LiteSpeed fan myself but don’t believe it’s that much faster. Difference so small you wouldn’t even notice.Īny other benchmarks showing LiteSpeed being 20-300% faster than NGINX are silly to me. But with caching, I’d say YES but only by a freaken hair.So is OpenLiteSpeed truly faster/better than NGINX? Initial slow response was quicker (OLS 106ms vs NGINX 137ms) and then the stable response was a tiny bit faster (OLS 65ms vs NGINX 67ms). But indeed, OLS is faster by a tiny tiny margin.The average is mostly affected by the slow initial response being averaged out. Both servers run virtually at the same speed once the cache kicks in after 2 seconds (~66ms per request). Don’t bother looking at average response times.NGINX (cached) vs OLS (cached) NGINX (cached) OLS (cached) Because nobody in their right mind would be serving 10k requests/min without caching. But realistically, this comparison doesn’t matter.I much prefer raw NGINX handling fewer requests at reasonable response (1sec) before crashing early, than OLS with slower initial response before trying to unsuccessfully handle more concurrent hits. OLS served 383 requests but averaged 9-sec for each, before failing in 16 seconds.NGINX served 150 requests and averaged 1-sec for each, before failing in 6 seconds.NGINX (un-cached) vs OLS (un-cached) NGINX (un-cached) OLS (un-cached) ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |