litespeed on High I/O amazon ec2

Discussion in 'LiteSpeed Cache' started by gdewey, Mar 23, 2013.

  1. gdewey

    gdewey New Member

    can someone make a guess how many concurrent users can LITESPEED handle on a site with this setting (considering all content is static and the rest in cache) ?.. all the dynamic content comes from a proxy context via xmlhttprequest (ajax) to a xml cached content. the proxy-target server is other than the lsws

    High I/O Quadruple Extra Large Instance (hi1.4xlarge)

    60.5 GiB of memory
    35 EC2 Compute Units (16 virtual cores*)
    2 SSD-based volumes each with 1024 GB of instance storage
    64-bit platform
    I/O Performance: Very High (10 Gigabit Ethernet)
    Storage I/O Performance: Very High***
    EBS-Optimized Available: No**
    API name: hi1.4xlarge

    *8 cores + 8 hyperthreads for 16 virtual cores

    I am trying to prepare for an event we have every year that has over 90,000 concurrent connections for 24 hrs. We normally loadbalance 2 or 3 cache servers. But I want to give litespeed a chance for this year's.

    And yes this is considering the Enterprise 8 CPU version.
  2. NiteWave

    NiteWave Administrator

    the 90k connections should be no problem for litespeed to handle, but it may hit some hardware / OS limit for example NIC throughput.

    assume all 90K connections are downloading large videos, for 10Gbit NIC, each connection will get max 11 bytes/second speed ? this speed won't be able to view video smoothly.

    anyway, 90k connections looks a huge number. maybe have to prepare a few servers to serve smoothly.
  3. gdewey

    gdewey New Member

    cache in front of webserver

    tks for your reply. one question related to this

    does it make sense to place a cache server infront of lsws that serves only static conntent?
  4. NiteWave

    NiteWave Administrator

    no need at all, it only adds extra load.

    only dynamic page need cache; static page should be served by litespeed directly. you can do benchmark testing, see if litespeed will outperform a cache server when serve static pages. when request a static file many times, linux will put the file in cache automatically, so litespeed will serve the same request more quickly.
  5. gdewey

    gdewey New Member

    reply

    well the only advantages I was thinking about the cache server where

    1. that site is on ram of the cache server (that can also be done in here as you mention)
    2. if origin server is down the cache server can serve older content until the origin is back.
    3. also it has some dos protection, but so as lsws

    let me make a benchmark between the 2. I just got the LOAD UI application to virtualize users for soap and http request :)
  6. gdewey

    gdewey New Member

    speed

    it seems like we are getting better benchmark WITH ls using using the exact same content ON

    LITESPEED ENTEPRISE 2 CORE on a dedicated AMAZON WS medium instance

    VS

    CLOUDFLARE Business PLAN FrontEnd

    VS

    AICACHE Cache Server on AMAZON WS medium instance

    is there a way to auto minify html on LS?
  7. NiteWave

    NiteWave Administrator

    auto minify html should not be done by a web server.
    the standard way is to gzip the html, which reduce the size and not change the original content.

Share This Page