Lite Speed or Apache?

[blazenetworks]

Apache is free but LiteSpeed is good in speed and its better for handling high traffic sites and it is completely Apache interchangeable so LiteSpeed Web Server can quickly replace a major bottleneck in your existing web delivery platform.

 

[CGIwire]

To be honest, if Apache is optimized then it can some times be just as good as lite speed, though it depends on how you decide to set it up.

 

[PsyberMind]

I was about to say.. there's nothing LS can do that apache can't.. except cost money of course

 

[David Vazquez]

Even though Lite Speed has it's strong-points, I definitely would still go for Apache.

It seems to work perfect for me so far.

 

[Deadly]

LightSpeed if you have the money.

 

[Sales@NocSer]

Light speed if you pretend to use maximum power of your servers.

Optimizing Apache could also save you a lot of money.

 

[QualityHost]

Yes, I think everyone pretty much agrees on the same. Apache is stable, free but can get bogged down.

Litespeed is great for busy servers.

 

[M to the C]

I suggest having two servers with one on each. I say this because some users might like apache more and others litespeed. In addition you can benchmark both and see what one is more suited for your needs.

 

[Dann Man]

I would recommend apache over any. just my personal preference.

 

[steven_s]

LiteSpeed is lot faster than apache, specially the enterprise version. Given the high traffic you get, I think you should make the switch. it totally worth it.

Steven
Thesslstore
**************

 

[David Gonzales]

I would vote for Lifespeed as it is faster and better...

 

[chennaihomie]

Apache is stable and the best web server.

If you are looking for lighter web server, try Nginx. Nginx with varnish will be a great alternative for apache. Better free than paid (litespeed)

 

[BreezeHost]

I would vote for Lifespeed as it is faster and better...

It's litespeed and not lifespeed Btw, I would vote to litespeed.

 

[TH-Guy]

LiteSpeed is much better than Apache - no doubt about it. I've been using it for a very long time now. However, apache is free, and in some (possibly the majority of) cases, there is no need to get the extra performance, speed, etc. that litespeed provides, so it's not really worth the money.

The best one to use (including most cost-effective solution in 'best') depends on the environment that it will run in.

 

[Shineshost]

I think it is clear.

Apache all the way.

I mean the mods for the apache will be great benefit and vers the paid lightspeed. If you have the money go for it but if you are dripping it out apache is a reliable http program.

 

[SolidServ]

nginx+apache is a pretty good setup. LiteSpeed is so costly.

 

[hostingdale]

LiteSpeed is faster, and better. But it does cost more than Apache, which costs absolutely nothing. For most (average) websites, apache would do a good job.

 

[supernix]

I was using a server that ran LiteSpeed and I will tell you I was so mad, I went to check the site and it was down. I dug around on the LiteSpeed forums to find out that this usually means that the permissions are not correct on the folders.
I didn't change the permissions so still don't know what went wrong with it. I have never had that happen with Apache ever. So knock on wood I have never had any issues with Apache serving web pages.

 

[subcozer]

Apache is not so fast but free and rather stable

 

[sanket-soft]

Lightspeed is a premium product but its better than Apache.