Comments on: LiteSpeed vs NGINX vs Apache: Web Server Showdown https://chemicloud.com/blog/litespeed-vs-nginx-vs-apache/ Wed, 16 Oct 2024 08:55:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: Aziz https://chemicloud.com/blog/litespeed-vs-nginx-vs-apache/#comment-4010 Sat, 20 Apr 2024 03:07:27 +0000 https://chemicloud.com/blog/?p=2037#comment-4010 Nothing comes close to Litespeed. NGINX is so much tougher to configure and customers seem happier with the WordPress Litespeed plugin.

]]> By: Tes Kecepatan Web Server LiteSpeed – JAGOANWP https://chemicloud.com/blog/litespeed-vs-nginx-vs-apache/#comment-3384 Tue, 12 Mar 2024 05:27:49 +0000 https://chemicloud.com/blog/?p=2037#comment-3384 […] tersebut, pengetesan pernah dilakukan oleh berbagai website diantaranya adalah Cyberpanel dan Chemicloud. Pada website LiteSpeed an Open LiteSpeed (versi free and opensource dari LiteSpeed), terdapat pula […]

]]> By: 10 Best Cheap Web Hosting In 2024: Reviewed & Compared — LinoDash https://chemicloud.com/blog/litespeed-vs-nginx-vs-apache/#comment-2136 Thu, 04 Jan 2024 12:15:00 +0000 https://chemicloud.com/blog/?p=2037#comment-2136 […] Litespeed is among the best enterprise server software, with incredible performance that surpasses the likes of Apache and NGINX.  […]

]]> By: igre https://chemicloud.com/blog/litespeed-vs-nginx-vs-apache/#comment-1080 Thu, 23 Nov 2023 09:53:53 +0000 https://chemicloud.com/blog/?p=2037#comment-1080 Litespeed performance is great. I use shared Nginx hosting. I had an increased number of visits… and in some peak loads the page was crashing…. Options: VPS or shared Litespeed…. shared Litespeed 🙂

]]> By: Tor https://chemicloud.com/blog/litespeed-vs-nginx-vs-apache/#comment-642 Tue, 21 Mar 2023 04:12:52 +0000 https://chemicloud.com/blog/?p=2037#comment-642 Litespeed performance is great. What I’m missing is high stability. Sometimes speed is not everything. The website could be much faster but what about my headache while building it? Maybe I just need to still adapt to it and learn small tricks.

]]> By: Rob https://chemicloud.com/blog/litespeed-vs-nginx-vs-apache/#comment-280 Sat, 19 Mar 2022 23:50:04 +0000 https://chemicloud.com/blog/?p=2037#comment-280 I had similar results until I enabled Nginx micro caching which then handled 30% more requests per second than Litespeed.
That’s only when the server is under load though. Before that, pages were already faster on Nginx out of the box compared to an optimised Litespeed setup.

]]> By: Michael Thomas https://chemicloud.com/blog/litespeed-vs-nginx-vs-apache/#comment-148 Tue, 26 Oct 2021 19:30:33 +0000 https://chemicloud.com/blog/?p=2037#comment-148 In reply to Dominik.

Hey Dominik,

Thanks for your comment. We didn’t make any configuration changes to the default settings on any of the web servers we set up for the test. The difference you’ve noticed here is most likely related to the default compression settings that come with the LiteSpeed Web Server by default. Out of the box, it’s using gzip or brotli compressed responses for both static and dynamically generated content. You can read more about this in the Official LiteSpeed Documentation here.

Let us know if you have any other questions! ^MT

]]> By: Dominik https://chemicloud.com/blog/litespeed-vs-nginx-vs-apache/#comment-145 Tue, 26 Oct 2021 12:03:52 +0000 https://chemicloud.com/blog/?p=2037#comment-145 One concern I might have is that total page size and request count changes. Why? Did you configure some caching/compression on the litespeed and not on the nginx/apache making it just plainly unfair to those servers?

]]>