Lite Speed or Apache?

[Muxo]

With Apache you have more freedom to optimize the things, but it is slower then Litespeed.It depends on what you are using the web server for.I personally prefer and recommend Litespeed.

 

[paullopez]

You should consider this link to get the answer of rest of your all questions.

http://www.litespeedtech.com/litespeed-vs-apache.html

 

[Muxo]

You should consider this link to get the answer of rest of your all questions.

I think the stats is overestimated a little.

 

[FrigidWeb]

I think the stats is overestimated a little.

Very true. I notice very little, if not any difference, at all when I'm browsing on servers that use litespeed. I think it's just a complete waste of money. Some people enjoy and utilize the freedom of apache and it's ease to install extra modules and whatnot that some hosts need.

Also, something I never really have gotten to understand, but does litespeed allow for extra modules and does it integrate with cpanel's Easy Apache feature?

 

[paullopez]

I think the stats is overestimated a little.

me too.

Actually the main aim of Apache is not be the fastest web server, Apache does have equal or you can say parallel performance to other high-performance web servers. So it's depends on user whether he wan to opt Apache or wan to go with Lite Speed.

 

[AJKpeter]

Litespeed is a bit pricey, Apache is my choice

 

[hostale]

I like Apache for now. Lite Speed is a plus to have it if you can afford it, it definetely has its benefits:Fast Compression, Encryption, SmartCleanup and etc..

 

[Josh [Timeless]]

LightSpeed does seem to make my sites load faster, but never seems to ease up on the CPU.

But then again, Apache is Apache - who doesn't love the APACHE!

 

[Lotosus.com]

LS if you have cash, Apache is fine too

 

[ServerSea]

Apache is very reliable and pretty fast server. You can run your servers on it with out any big problems (if you take care of your server properly).

So, if a free server works for you. Why would you go for a paid system?

 

[Christiano]

The choice between the two would depend on your requirements. Both have their own advantages. For eg, Apache has a command line administration whereas litespeed has a GUI. On the other hand Apache is free whereas litespeed is not..

 

[ServerSea]

Apache does have equal or you can say parallel performance to other high-performance web servers.

Exactly, that's why it is used most than any other web server.
Its free, so any one can use for his/her business.

 

[Snel IS]

i vote for apache, its free, good, and it supports a lot!

 

[UNIXy]

Sticking with Apache doesn't always mean you're missing out on performance. There are accelerators that work rather quite well with Apache like Varnish and Nginx.

Best
Joe / UNIXY

 

[easyhostmedia]

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

Litespeed $15 a month is not too costly and after using this for several months i surveyed my clients and all commented on the better performace since litespeed was initiated.

so for me litespeed WINS

 

[Limespace]

Litespeed is preferred

 

[jacobatwood]

Apache is best.
Apache running on Linux is a pretty good combination.

 

[BeZazz]

Only a few hours ago I was giving this some thought and for me Apache is better as I have no real "busy" sites hosted so LiteSpeed for me would be over kill.

From what I have read if you very busy site/s hosted then LiteSpeed would be the way to go.

 

[dlee]

I feel like regardless of whatever you want to become proficient in it's important to offer Apache Servers to your customers as well as have staff very educated with all things Apache. After that, moving on to other Web Servers like Litespeed is fine.

And yeah, Apache is free but Litespeed is faster. You'll get that with almost everyone that has experience with both.

Good Luck

 

[ASCIIDiGital]

I think once Apache 2.4 stable is released, the "Litespeed is faster" argument is going to disappear:

http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.3/new_features_2_4.html