Make Litespeed compatible with Cloudlinux's limits

[Monarobase]

Problem :
When CloudLinux applies a limit it gives an error message and their Apache modhostinglimits shows a 508 Server Busy error message. Litespeed doesn't detect this error message and shows a 503 internal server error instead.

When it happens :
This happens in two cases :

1) If a user goes over his max Entry Process limit
2) If a user's account uses up too much CPU (the CPU queue gets too long)

Why it happens :
Currently Litespeed isn't compatible with these two situations. It doesn't detect Cloudlinux's error, it tries multiple times to connect to PHP and shows a 503 internal error instead of 508 server busy error. 503 errors make Litespeed to restart.

Litespeed's current workaround
You can fix the first problem by increasing CloudLinux's Entry process limit to be larger than Litespeed's limit but this means you can no longer set Entry process limits per account or per package.

When Litespeed's workaround doesn't work :
You can't fix the second problem as if you remove CloudLinux's CPU limits that removes the whole point of CloudLinux.

What could happen
If multiple accounts hit their max CPU queue limit and both start trying to show 508 errors which are not recognised and 503 errors are show instead, litespeed with start a series of restarts. If the server doesn't have much ressources left restarting litespeed will not help and could cause unavailabilities or make the server crash.

My Feature request :
My feature request is for Litespeed to detect CloudLinux error messages and show a 508 error message instead of a 503, thus not restarting Litespeed when a CloudLinux limit is hit.

Who need's this Feature ?
I'm pretty sure a large percentage of your customers use both CloudLinux and Litespeed so this request should be put on a quite high priority. Any server using both Litespeed and CloudLinux need's Litespeed to be able to detect CloudLinux Errors.

[Monarobase]

Sorry to up this thread, but in my previous thread (here : http://www.litespeedtech.com/support...ead.php?t=6902 [that can be closed or marked solved or merged with this thread]) I asked if you could update me on how difficult this would be to implement and how likely this could be implemented in the next few versions or give me some sort of timespan…

Have you been able to speak to your developers about it ? If so, what importance does making litespeed compatible with CloudLinux have?.

[NiteWave]

Thanks for reminding us multiple times. I believe development has known your request since your first post. I appreciate your detailed description about the issue.

[Monarobase]

Sorry about the multiple times. I guessed as my initial topic did not start with a feature request and was not in the feature request forum I should create a new feature request.

As I did not get any answers to my initial topic I presumed that you had forgotten about it. To my defense there are some topics on these forums that are over a year old without any answers…

I'm not asking for an official ETA as I know it's to early for you to announce something like this. But I would like to have an idea about how difficult a task this would be and at what priority this will be treated with. Is this something that could be implemented within the next year or will it be put aside for years to come ?

I'm sure your developpers should be able to give you some idea about how difficult it would be to detect the error and also for the people who decide priorities to say how important this is.