Search results

1 process can handle many many requests, for example in benchmark, it can server thousands of requests per second. You needn't worry about worker's number at all when the traffic is very low. any web server should handle it very well, include apache. if you only have 1 or a few virtual hosts...

the traffic is very low. please refer http://www.litespeedtech.com/products/litespeed-web-server/editions for more information regarding standard version.

these errors can be ignored. to have it disappear, just do #ln -s /usr/local/lsws/fcgi-bin/lsphp5 /usr/local/lsws/fcgi-bin/lsphp55 this is correct behavior. 127.0.0.1 is localhost. if you site in front of the server, you can access 127.0.0.1:7080. otherwise you can't access it remotely.

Thank you, wanah!

or RewriteCond %{HTTP_USER_AGENT} mozilla/5.0 [NC] ==> RewriteCond %{HTTP_USER_AGENT} " \(X11; Linux i686\)"

yes, I tried the script, after following it works fine with litespeed.

if you can test under apache and tell the difference with litespeed, will be even better. Thanks

yes, I think so. besides 127.0.0.1, all other IPs on this server should be supported as well. in the past, you've to manually create a "server external app" for 127.0.0.1:XXXXX before using it in .htaccess now, it's dynamically created. but for IPs not on the server, I think still need create a...

I've not tried yet. to my understanding, it's automatic and transparent to end users, it'll just work if work under apache. if you try and still problem, please report here for developer to follow up.

our benchmark tests tell us network card is the bottle neck. in real world, network card itself is hard to be saturated and not the bottle neck at all. rather, "network connection" between client and server may be the main delay factor. in contrast, you can run same tests in LAN, the network...

can you run the test a few more times, to confirm if the 3 images is slowest all the time ? both litespeed and nginx is event-driven, static files (including images) performance have been optimized to max(as we did benchmarks before, the bottle neck is network card, both can saturate 1G / 10G...

please try 4.2.13, see if it's fixed or not. #/usr/local/lsws/admin/misc/lsup.sh -f -v 4.2.13

>i just edit the cache value in admin - server - cache to it's not enough. please follow our wiki for vbseo: https://www.litespeedtech.com/support/wiki/doku.php/litespeed_wiki:cache:lscache:vbseo

is your site vbseo ? have you followed any wiki page to enable lscache ?

the web server(software) is litespeed. please contact your host to resolve this issue. They installed our software (litespeed web server) on the physical server.

I did a few quick tests under apache and litespeed. print "$i<br>\n"; apache: "Content-Length: 54" litespeed: "Content-Length:47" print "$i<br>\n"; flush(); this will force apache "Transfer-Encoding: chunked" but lsws still output "Content-Length:..." print...

just replied PM

can you PM me the access to this server (ssh and/or lsws web admin :7080).

yes, in chrome access: https://www.bucketfeet.com/skin/frontend/default/bucketfeetnew/js/jquery-1.4.2.min.js Response Header: HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 01:39:21 GMT Server: LiteSpeed Accept-Ranges: bytes Connection: Keep-Alive Keep-Alive: timeout=5, max=100 Last-Modified: Tue, 17...

>So If I order more core license, my server will work well, right? probably not. the reason why it becomes slow after 2-3 days may be quite complex or quite simple, it may relate to many factors. but it's not a common case -- we know many litespeed can run for months without a restart in real...