Hi,
I am not too impressed with the speed of CS-cart. It some how has been very slow for me
Just wondering if anyone here has hosted their site on LiteSpeed servers instead of Apache. Does it make any difference to CS-cart’s speed since its a PHP-heavy cart and Litespeed excels in serving up PHP quite faster than Apache (atleast that’s what the comparisons say).
Let us have opinions and reviews on this.
[quote name=‘jain1980’]Hi,
I am not too impressed with the speed of CS-cart. It some how has been very slow for me
Just wondering if anyone here has hosted their site on LiteSpeed servers instead of Apache. Does it make any difference to CS-cart’s speed since its a PHP-heavy cart and Litespeed excels in serving up PHP quite faster than Apache (atleast that’s what the comparisons say).
Let us have opinions and reviews on this.[/quote]
Hi,
Yes, it’s a big difference between Apache and LiteSpeed.
Take a look at our offer [URL]http://forum.cs-cart.com/showthread.php?t=15068[/URL]
You can test your CS-Cart store at one of Martfox servers 14 days free of charge.
Bye.
We use litespeed on our servers with CS-cart, and we have never had an issue with speed or errors. I think its been pretty fast! Here are some of the sites we have:
http://www.yourstreetsigns.com
http://www.machineking.com
Jgaris,
I tested the speed of the first site in your list at [url]http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/[/url]
Yours is double the load time of my site, which is fairly image-heavy. I’m on Apache and a Hostgator server.
Bryan R.
I have heard mixed reports on Litespeed some like it some do not.
I would love more reports on those who have tested both apache and Litespeed on the same website
[quote name=‘jain1980’]I am not too impressed with the speed of CS-cart. It some how has been very slow for me
Just wondering if anyone here has hosted their site on LiteSpeed servers instead of Apache. Does it make any difference to CS-cart’s speed since its a PHP-heavy cart and Litespeed excels in serving up PHP quite faster than Apache (atleast that’s what the comparisons say).[/QUOTE]
[quote name=‘animatedmarketing’]… is double the load time of my site, which is fairly image-heavy. I’m on Apache and a Hostgator server.
Bryan R.[/QUOTE]
The fact that you would be faster on Apache in and of itself actualy does not surprise me even in the slightest and I would take a pretty fair guess that more specifically you are running Apache 2.2 series, right? 
Just a couple years ago, Apache didn’t have as good of a connection handling engine as it does today and back then, Lightspeed could easily run circles around it on smaller sites but was unable to really handle larger more traffic intensive site to which Apache was really the only choice.
Since then Lightspeed has greatly improved it’s fatal flaws handling larger sites but meanwhile Apache has greatly improved it’s performance bottlenecks to catch up to and even in many cases now actually surpassing Lightspeed.
The old night and day differences of a few years ago between Lightspeed and Apache kind of built a following and bias that truth be known is really not so significant today. To further confuse matters, most tests you see today touting wider gaps between the two are often skewed by running one system well optimized against the other poorly optimized to push favorite sides.
Taking away the bias, and apples for apples, matching the systems with proper optimization and tuning, both can be very fast and the answer as to which outperforms the other is not so clear cut as each lend themselves to better performance for different types of sites and different applications.
Apache, in most all applications with the exception of a very small few, will actually outperform Lightspeed today. However, while Apache does offer a lot more control, it is also a lot more difficult to configure and is not well tuned fresh out of the box with a flat blind install without any tuning or optimizing performed.
Lightspeed, does not overall perform as well against a well tuned Apache server in most overall applications but it does have the advantage that it is ridiculously simple to install and, though also not ideally optimized straight out of the box, is a much better choice for those who just want to install and go and still get fair performance with the least work involved.
Given that I do in fact know what I am doing myself in what I do and I deal with an enormously wide variety of host configurations each and every day, If I had to name one as the top winner in overall performance and versatility for myself, that choice would be Apache 2.2.14 currently.
As for what is the best platform for yourself?
That is going to be something you are going to have to decide for yourself depending on your specific hosting situation, experience, and effort you are willing to put into making your site as fast as possible.
Hi Spiral,
that’s right what you say in your post, but it wont help the end-user, if the hosting company can’t right configure their servers and make some tunings as you described.
we have just transferred all our website to WiredTree and they are just perfect. Managed Servers and fast comunication also litespeed available. you can try them. Not bad prices either.
[quote name=‘silverbestbuy’]we have just transferred all our website to WiredTree and they are just perfect. Managed Servers and fast comunication also litespeed available. you can try them. Not bad prices either.[/QUOTE]
I use WiredTree and my site loads in the US in about 1.5 seconds without Litespeed so I am not sure if Lightspeed would be of much help and worth the extra monthly fee.
I have found that litespeed is much more effective when there is more than a little traffic on the site. For sites with little traffic, you will see little to no difference. But once you start getting medium to high traffic, it will maintain a fast speed for many more connections than with apache.
I use lightspeed from martfox and never had a problem, 8000 plus products & images fastest I have ever had.
John
Has any of you found a way to implement LiteSpeed Cache for CS-Cart?