WHB, increase your capacity, reduce your load

[w13zybez]

I'm a customer of WHB for a long time now. I noticed you're using, "Apache/2.0.63". I started laughing when I saw that.

What you need to do is start using Lighttpd web-server (with Fastcgi PHP), with a caching reverse-proxy (I recommend: Varnish)

This will increase your capacity by at least 1000%

(Do I get free stuff for making such a good suggestion? )

[Matt R.]

We've looked at lighttpd. It is still under evaluation.

[w13zybez]

I run a very high traffic site which receives 100,000 uniques a DAY ... and by using Lighttpd + varnish, we've managed to increase capacity from 400 requests/sec to around 4000 reqs/sec.

[calvynlee]

I run a very high traffic site which receives 100,000 uniques a DAY ... and by using Lighttpd + varnish, we've managed to increase capacity from 400 requests/sec to around 4000 reqs/sec.

I am very new in web hosting, I did not heard before "Lighttpd web-server", if you don't mind, can you compare Lighttpd web-server and Apache?

Hope can learn some thing here

[w13zybez]

I am very new in web hosting, I did not heard before "Lighttpd web-server", if you don't mind, can you compare Lighttpd web-server and Apache?

Hope can learn some thing here

You're asking to compare a Honda to a Ferrari.

Apache is slow. Simple as that. There are ways to configure Apache so it works faster, but 99.9999% of Apache installations are NOT configured properly. (The same way, you can make a Honda go fast, but you have to install all sorts of modifications and change the default 'configurations').

Lighttpd is naturally fast. You install it, and you're getting the fastest and most powerful web-server. It has a TINY footprint on your resources, but it gives you all the features you'd expect from a web server. There are ways to make Lighttpd *even* faster, if you use Varnish (a reverse proxy).

Here's the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lighttpd
And one on varnish: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varnish_cache
Also worth reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_proxy
And the official site: http://www.lighttpd.net/

Lighttpd powers sites like Wikipedia and Youtube ... so, why not WHB ;-)

[StephenJ]

It doesn't look too bad, I only have experience with Apache though.

[turtlepirate]

Yeah that all sounds nice but what about those who run a Wordpress website or any other program that requires an Apache server to run? Won't you be limiting compatible scripts by switching servers?

[calvynlee]

I have look over some comparison article, it really give a good result, the number of request really much more then apache.

Yeah that all sounds nice but what about those who run a Wordpress website or any other program that requires an Apache server to run? Won't you be limiting compatible scripts by switching servers?

if lighttpd able to run all those software/script that apache can run, that is great, but does it really can? as turtlepirate mention?

[omniuni]

Lightppd has a lot of nice things, but the largest detractor is that like many things that require an apache extension cPanel is currently not available for Lightppd, and this would be a difficult obstacle to overcome for a host like WHB.

It may, however, be nice to have a choice of a Lightppd machine with some cPanel alternative, but it would be more work for WHB. I would not blame them for just sticking with Apache.

Note: Someone, please correct me if I am incorrect.

[Matt R.]

The largest problem for us at this time is that the licensing model makes it very expensive. Usually when you buy over X amount of licenses, you can get a site license for an annual fee + maintenance fee but they do not offer one.

[omniuni]

That is interesting. Do you have to pay licensing for Apache?

[w13zybez]

Lighttpd is free. There's no licenses to buy.

Also, Lighttpd can be configured to serve STATIC content and divert all other requests to Apache.

But if it's too hard to move off Apache, then at least use a reverse proxy! :-)

Also- I recommend http://haproxy.1wt.eu/ (HA PROXY) ... just installing this in front of everything else on port-80 on a machine will cut load immediately. This is without having to load-balance with other servers or anything.

And I'm hoping WHB is using an op-code cacher. I recommend eAccelerator (it performs better than APC and Xcache).

[w13zybez]

There's also LiteSpeed ... also much faster than Apache (but compatible with Apache-related stuff like Cpanel and much of the config). It's not free, the licenses are $$$ per-cpu-core, but they'll be a good investment for WHB if the capacity increases by 100% to 1000%

[calvynlee]

I have come across this topic at other forum. and some one recomended

litespeed

and seen like it better then lighttpd.... any comment?

here the benchmark show http://www.litespeedtech.com/web-ser...ed-2.1-vs.html

[w13zybez]

I heard very good things about LiteSpeed ... Twitter.com uses it I believe ... and, many web-hosts are offering LiteSpeed.

I personally haven't used it, so I can't judge. I can speak for Lighttpd, and tell you it's better than Apache. Only thing worst than Apache I used was IIS.

[calvynlee]

Only thing worst than Apache I used was IIS.

IIS only for windows server right?

[Alan B]

Yes, IIS is for Windows servers.