Why is it so expensive?

Discussion in 'Feedback/Feature Requests' started by rlshosting, Aug 6, 2011.

  1. rlshosting

    rlshosting New Member

    Just wondering. Thank you.
  2. cmanns

    cmanns New Member

    I agree. I'm not going to bash LiteSpeed as I enjoy it's benefit's but our view's changing as the time goes by (and updates)

    The restarts every few hours are rather annoying, a product should be able to produce longer uptime then 2-3 hours.

    Just saying as opinion to LiteSpeed public relations to think about their opposition. I mean then LSCache requires 2 cpu and VPS is going to be tightened down? If I were to get paid how much I pay yearly to LiteSpeed for slow/buggy updates and often terrible feedback (In tickets, those who represent LiteSpeed here I appreciate your help as always) however 150/hour for support when I'm trying to figure out your odd webserver I've used for years. It's an drop in Apache replacement with lots of low priority changes, why don't we get this webserver past Nginx/etc performance:cost ratio.

    :)
  3. rlshosting

    rlshosting New Member

    $32 to $92 is a bit expensive in my book. It might not cost much I guess compared to a server but I still wonder why I have to have it when I can make Apache better or install Nginx in conjunction with Apache for free.
  4. redstrike

    redstrike Member

    If the costs of owned license is more efficiency, LiteSpeed will be better. I am considered to buy 2-CPU license with CACHE features (800 $), or 1-CPU (250 $) with Varnish at front...

    Day by day, server hardwares is cheaper. A commondity server has up to 4 cores, i wonder 1-CPU license will help us saving our money or just wasted in license fees?
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2011
  5. MikeF

    MikeF New Member

    I like the software, but...

    The upgrade fee for the 8-CPU owned license is crazy. This is in no way against the developers or their product. The price for upgrades should not be tiered and should fall to a flat rate, in my opinion. This is especially true when you consider that the code is likely forked to create CPU-restricted copies. Litespeed could be the most used web server on the Internet if they eased up on the pricing.
  6. Monarobase

    Monarobase New Member

    It's not that expensive… my guess is that if you need a 8 CPU licence Apache would have crashed a long time ago.

    Firstly it's 8 phyiscal CPU's, that makes 16 threads on most servers.

    A 2 CPU licence will allow you 4 threads and with only 4 threads you can cope with quite alot of visits ! Don't forget PHP and MySQL don't count towards the limit for for most installs a 2 CPU licence will probably be plenty on a server with 8 threads maybe even on 16 thread servers.

    We've started with a 4 CPU licence (8 threads) on a server with 32 threads. From the current usage I doubt we will need the 8CPU (16 thread) licence. If we do need it one day then the licence fee will be easily paid for by the extra customers litespeed will allow you to put on the same server.

    The crazyness of the 8CPU licence will allow you to host a crazy number of page views !
  7. tomksoft

    tomksoft New Member

    It all depends on the use case. In our case the choice is like this:
    1. With LiteSpeed
    a) One powerful, multicpu server: $600 a month
    b) LiteSpeed License: ~$90 a month for 8 CPU license
    2. Without LiteSpeed
    a) Two powerful, multicpu servers: $1200 a month
    b) Apache: free(but most likely will require someone skilled to tune it, as there is no easy to use configuration panel, so additional spending is required)

    So for us, it is like saving $700 per sever a month :)

Share This Page