I’d like to start a discussion on compare and contrast between these
two web servers. Has anyone evaluated both?
Thanks!
Chirag
I’d like to start a discussion on compare and contrast between these
two web servers. Has anyone evaluated both?
I’ve used nginx, but not for running rails. We use litespeed at work
and
it works great. I also use it at home mostly because i have several
sites
with very little traffic and it does a good job of starting/stopping the
lsapi (rails) processes as needed.
Their GUI configuration has come a long way in recent releases. It can
take a little bit to wrap your head around how they do some things and
if
you try and edit the config files manually be careful (it’s all XML).
One nice thing is the ability to setup a vhost template and then add
domains to it. Change the template, everything else changes.
If you’re coming from Apache and have mucked with the log file format
and/or a lot of the rewriting rules you may find some incompatibilities.
Not many, but there are some things that work a little differently.
If you run it on OSX and get tired of hearing your disk scratch see this
post for a work around:
http://blog.pjkh.com/articles/2007/03/27/litespeed-osx-and-disk-scratching
Overall I like litespeed. Note - all my experience is with the
free/standard version. Also note that litespeed isn’t open. It’s
free
though if you don’t need the enterprise features.
-philip
I agree with philip. I use litespeed to host rails,php and it works very
well 
Also it has greate update system (1 click and we get new version).
Admining by web interface is very useful.
Litespeed is probably faster than all other rails solutions. My
benchmaks suggested it was faster than evented mongrel as well. Only
reason people don’t use litespeed a lot is, they’re easily scared of
by 150 connection limit, without really understaning what it means.
On Dec 7, 2007 6:31 AM, chirag [email protected] wrote:
–
Cheers!
- Pratik
http://m.onkey.org
Pratik Naik wrote:
Litespeed is probably faster than all other rails solutions. My
benchmaks suggested it was faster than evented mongrel as well. Only
reason people don’t use litespeed a lot is, they’re easily scared of
by 150 connection limit, without really understaning what it means.On Dec 7, 2007 6:31 AM, chirag [email protected] wrote:
–
Cheers!
- Pratik
http://m.onkey.org
So, what it means? I was confused by this limit too…
- Pratik
http://m.onkey.orgSo, what it means? I was confused by this limit too…
It means that as soon as you have 151 connections that 151st one will
fail.
It does NOT mean that you can only serve 150 requests/second. Unless
of
course each request takes an entire second (or more).
Even if it did take 1 secdond/request, if evenly spread out through the
day that’s 12,960,000 requests. That’s a lot of traffic. More than
most of us will see in a day 
Only reason people don’t use litespeed a lot is, they’re easily scared of by 150 connection limit, without really understaning what it means.
It means that as soon as you have 151 connections that 151st one will fail.
The 151st connection doesn’t fail, it is queued until one of the
current 150 connections is finished.
From the LiteSpeed staff
It’s not Concurrent Users, rather it’s max connections or in another
words, max concurrent connections. 150 concurrent connections can
support magnitudes more concurrent users, unless you have users that
are downloading very large files that takes a long time to process.
So if 150 users are all downloading a 50MB file at the same second,
that would be 150 connections and if the 151st user comes in to
download and you have the standard edition, the connection request is
queued meaning it will not be processed until someone out of the
initial 150 download finishes.
Thanks,
John