What is the fastest server from your point?

[haizamk]

Apache are the best

 

[rackaid]

This depends on your application.

If you are serving static content, the most benchmarks show systems like nginx and lighttpd to be faster, but if you are serving complex applications, apache or litespeed may be required.

Too often, I see people look for the "fastest" server to power there web site. Somethings that I find people often overlook:

-At your traffic levels, the server choice is largely irrelevant.

-The difference in speeds between servers may be trivial compared to the gains achieved with better code.

-If you have the wrong hosting infrastructure, changing HTTP servers is merely a patch for bad design.

Finally,
Test, test test. The results may surprise you.

I had a client that insisted we install something like tux, lighttpd, or nginx for his site to "speed it up." I explained at length that the HTTP server was not the problem but that the disk subsystem was the issue. After much debate, I relented. Installed 3 different HTTP servers with no improvement.

I asked for a 15K SCSI disk to be added to the system - problem fixed.

So unless you know your HTTP server choice is an issue, there are probably more important reasons than speed to guide your server selection.

 

[webhosting.am]

The fastness of server depends on the purpose it is going to be used for.

 

[supportfacility]

Hello,

Apache server, because its a very secure and reliable for web server.

+1 vote :thumbup:

 

[kunnusingh]

+1 for Apache. its free and Open source.

maybe light speed is encrypted?

 

[hostingguy12]

In my opinion I have used Apache and Litespeed. Both are fast but depending on the types of applications you are wanting to run and what you are using the server for I believe both are equal. Litespeed can be a little faster for demanding applications.

 

[Sales@NocSer]

Lightspeed is much times faster than Apache when its comes to the heavy trafffic.

I agree with this..

 

[dmmcintyre3]

I use nginx on my VPS.

 

[Axigy]

LiteSpeed offers a tad better preformance handling PHP in my experience. Then again, why pay for something you don't need. Apache does the job it needs to do so why replace it.

My 2 cents.

 

[TheRACK]

Apache server

 

[Supreme]

litespeed is definitely fast, some of our colo customers use them.

 

[David Gonzales]

We are using Apache on all our servers.

:smash:

 

[Caronet-Hesham]

Apache here! Haven't used litespeed to be honest but Apache has served me well

 

[TheRACK]

Apache on afew of mine~

 

[ayksolutions]

The only problem with litespeed is that they do not allow adult, otherwise it's a good webserver. But lighttpd and apache do the job just as well, lighttpd more so in certain situations. nginx is also good.

 

[TheRACK]

ya thats right on, i find from exp apache works for me best.

 

[afam]

Litespeed seems to be the fastes server. Ther are way faster than Apache.

 

[rackaid]

I forgot to mention earlier that the choice of the web server is only half of the issue.

You will likely be running some scripts, so the method you select to deploy those scripts will be equally as important.

Take php ... mod_php, su-php, fast-cgi, cgi, persistent cgi, etc.

This also has a significant impact on performance and varies considerably from app to app.

 

[pinoyhosting1]

for me . iam with apache.. but hopefully will try lightspeed.

 

[ubservers]

We are using apache on our servers and we are pleased with it.
Apache is a solid piece of software which has made its proofs.
LiteSpeed has a lot of hype around those days, but I haven't had any person using it that said it really was faster.

I'll stick with apache unless I have facts from others than the vendors...