# Issues with Litespeed **URL:** \ **Category:** Rails\ **Created:** [July 13, 2007, 10:46pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/issues-with-litespeed/109385 "2007-07-13T22:46:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![rawn027](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/d07c76/32.png) [@rawn027](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rawn027)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2007, 10:46pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/issues-with-litespeed/109385/1 "2007-07-13T22:46:49Z")
It is very fast and obviously easier to use than any other solution but I am not happy that they limit their product for the non- enterprise version. I think I am going to get mongrel and apache running on Solaris and compare the two. If litespeed is that much better I will have to stick with it. Oh well. If anyone has any information that they would like to offer to setting this server up on solaris please let me know. Thanks! -Ron ---
**Author:** ![rawn027](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/d07c76/32.png) [@rawn027](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rawn027)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2007, 11:04pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/issues-with-litespeed/109385/2 "2007-07-13T23:04:50Z")
> It is very fast and obviously easier to use than any other solution > but I am not happy that they limit their product for the non- > enterprise version. Are you hitting that limit? 150 _active_ connections per second is an awful lot of traffic… it’s not 150 _requests/sec_… which is very different… And as far as we’ve found, static content serving is as fast as apache was. ---
**Author:** ![rawn027](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/d07c76/32.png) [@rawn027](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rawn027)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2007, 11:09pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/issues-with-litespeed/109385/3 "2007-07-13T23:09:51Z")
I will have to check it out once I get my Solaris 10 server provisioned. I will keep everyone updated on my comparison between Apache+Mongrel and Litespeed. -Ron