litespeed slower than apache?

Discussion in 'Install/Configuration' started by furimedia, Mar 2, 2008.

  1. furimedia

    furimedia Well-Known Member

    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?
  2. mistwang

    mistwang LiteSpeed Staff

    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.
  3. mistwang

    mistwang LiteSpeed Staff

    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
  4. mistwang

    mistwang LiteSpeed Staff

    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.
  5. furimedia

    furimedia Well-Known Member

    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?
  6. anewday

    anewday Moderator

    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. :)
  7. IrPr

    IrPr Well-Known Member

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

    mistwang LiteSpeed Staff

    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.

Share This Page