litespeed slower than apache?

[furimedia]

I have also tried to enable xcache on litespeed and notice that its not caching anything.
Only thing it caches is when I try to access the xcache admin page, only that page gets cached.

Is there some remedy to this?

Here is my xcache settings:

[xcache]
xcache.shm_scheme = "mmap"
xcache.size = 64M
xcache.count = 4
xcache.slots = 8K
xcache.ttl = 0
xcache.gc_interval = 0
xcache.var_size = 32M
xcache.var_count = 4
xcache.var_slots = 8K
xcache.var_ttl = 0
xcache.var_maxttl = 0
xcache.var_gc_interval = 300

I've tried xcache.count to 1 through 4 and they all do not seem to do the trick.

As for the softlimit/hardlimit on litespeed, i have set them to 512MB.

And also, I have placed my copy of php.ini to /usr/local/lsws/lsphp5/lib/php.ini , is this the correct standard way?

And I did make the change so that PHP suEXEC Max Conn is 200.

I was hoping for some performance gains once I move to litespeed but it seems I'm experiencing everything oposite of what litespeed advertises on performance.

[mistwang]

Originally Posted by furimedia

I'm wondering if the default Litespeed sets it so it throttles your bandwidth?

Things like loading images, seem to be a lot slower on litespeed than on apache, why?

Pleae post your I/O wait reading. Higher I/O wait has bigger impact on event-driven web servers than multi-process or multi-thread web servers.

LiteSpeed does has bandwidth throttling feature, but it is not enabled by default under "Server->Security" tab.

Also, if there is I/O intensive tasks on your server, you can try bump the process priority of lshttpd by set "Server->General->Priority" to "-10" or something. It may help.

[furimedia]

Correct me if I'm wrong but, does that mean Litespeed has a bottleneck on harddrive rather than on cpu?
I am on SATA 7200rpm and although its no scsi, I still think it should be enough.

But after setting the priority to -10, it does seem like its loading the images a bit quicker, but still not the same level as apache.

[mistwang]

Another trick is to let two lshttpd processes work together.
Create a listener with <IP>:80, IP is the IP addressed used by the primary web site hosted on the server. "Bind" the listener to both "Process 1" and "Process 2". the restart. both lshttpd processes will be actively serving files for that site. it should work better.

LiteSpeed use multiple processes to compensate the I/O wait. All other light-weight web servers has exactly the same issue with the same remedy.

You should identify the task causing high disk I/O wait if any, and try to minimize it as much as you can, no matter you use Apache or LiteSpeed, or whatever.

[furimedia]

Hello Wang, thanks and I will try out that solution later tonight.

But what worries me is that, I wonder if this is Litespeed's flaw?

Because when I switch back to Apache, the images(especially) loads much quicker. It loads most of the images almost instantly. This is same for almost all the sites hosted on this server.

I can really tell the difference when especially loading a wordpress blog with lots of images.

On Litespeed, it loads images much slowly. Is this happening for just me? Is anyone else having this issue?

The server does not really have much load, it is just always under 0.5 most of the time so I don't think there is any I/O wait hit and most of the sites are just wordpress blogs. And like I said, I never had this problem on apache.

[mistwang]

I don't know what's wrong with your installation, have you change anything under "Server"->"Security"->"Per Client limits"?

Post you configuration. I can take a look at the configuration as well if you PM me the login to the Admin console.

[furimedia]

Thanks mswang, PM has been sent.

[anewday]

Can you give an update on this? Always looking to learn how to optimize it further.

[PSS]

Originally Posted by mistwang

Another trick is to let two lshttpd processes work together.
Create a listener with <IP>:80, IP is the IP addressed used by the primary web site hosted on the server. "Bind" the listener to both "Process 1" and "Process 2". the restart. both lshttpd processes will be actively serving files for that site. it should work better.

LiteSpeed use multiple processes to compensate the I/O wait. All other light-weight web servers has exactly the same issue with the same remedy.

You should identify the task causing high disk I/O wait if any, and try to minimize it as much as you can, no matter you use Apache or LiteSpeed, or whatever.

What happens when binding is "Not Set"? I seem to have 4 or 5 lshttpd processes (4 cores) so the default is "bind all"?

[furimedia]

Hmm lets say that I have an 8-core cpu and license.

Does that mean that it'd be much better if I create 8 listeners with 1 cpu binded? rather than having a single listener bound with 8 CPU binded?