litespeed slower than apache?

[furimedia]

Hey anewday

Basically Mistwang just went ahead to my system and optimized it himself out of his courtesy, so I cant really say much in terms of what he has changed.

But I did notice a bit of an improvement and am pretty satisfied with it.

One thing that stick to my head was the priority level was set to -19, i guess that is the highest cpu priority on the LS. I think that is what did the trick?

[mistwang]

Originally Posted by PSS

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

Yes, that's correct when you create a listener from the web console.
For listener configured via Apache httpd.conf only one process is assigned, you need to override that by explicitly creating a listener from web console.

[mistwang]

Originally Posted by furimedia

Hey anewday

Basically Mistwang just went ahead to my system and optimized it himself out of his courtesy, so I cant really say much in terms of what he has changed.

But I did notice a bit of an improvement and am pretty satisfied with it.

One thing that stick to my head was the priority level was set to -19, i guess that is the highest cpu priority on the LS. I think that is what did the trick?

Yes, that's correct. his server is some what disk I/O bound, for linux kernel 2.6.13 with CFQ io scheduler, higher process priority will give higher disk I/O priority as well, please read the man page for more detail.

man ionice

[mistwang]

Originally Posted by 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?

It is really up to you and how the traffic distributed among listeners, LSWS give you this flexibility to do either way.

Use 8 listeners is more flexible, like if you want to assign one large site to 5 processes, another site to other 3 processes. It is really up to you how to allocate processes to listeners and how many listeners should be used.

[furimedia]

Hii Mistwang thanks for the reply.

Got a couple questions.

So by default, if i have no listeners, does that mean I have just one default listener running? If so, is it bound to 8-cpu by default?


And what is the benefit of having 8 listeners as opposed to 1 listener?
Is this for achieving much better concurrent connections?

If I have lots of virtual hosts, which do you think is recommended?

[anewday]

Originally Posted by mistwang

Yes, that's correct. his server is some what disk I/O bound, for linux kernel 2.6.13 with CFQ io scheduler, higher process priority will give higher disk I/O priority as well, please read the man page for more detail.

man ionice

I think I may benefit from setting higher priority for the lshttpd process, what do you think? It's set to epoll for Event I/O Dispatcher since I'm using 2.6 kernel.

[IrPr]

Originally Posted by 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.

Just want to note that Opcode cachers doent work properly with Suexec

[mistwang]

Yeah, some opcode cache is not suexec friendly as it requires all PHP processes forked off one parent process.

eaccelerator may be better as it uses a on disk cache which can be shared by all PHP processes.