Stress Test

Adrien

Adam That's very interesting.

Adam The most likely explanation is that the Runcloud setup was serving from the cache, and the Enhance setup was not.

I had LSCP installed on Litespeed Enterprise server and was running on Quic.cloud CDN. I thought that was it for enabling caching. Do you mean something else needs to be done to enable caching on Enhance setup?

Adam LSCache PHP module

What is this? Do you mean Litespeed Cache plugin installed inside WP?
I have checked on the website link you've shared, and I have "LSCache is supported, and LiteSpeed cache is a hit"

Thank you Adam for your help.

Adam

Adrien I had LSCP installed on Litespeed Enterprise server and was running on Quic.cloud CDN. I thought that was it for enabling caching. Do you mean something else needs to be done to enable caching on Enhance setup?

Impossible to say without looking at the site. LiteSpeed and quic.cloud will decide to cache or not cache based on headers, URL path, cookies, request method and many other variables. The WordPress LSCache module is very good at managing this behaviour when used with LiteSpeed/OpenLiteSpeed.

Adrien What is this? Do you mean Litespeed Cache plugin installed inside WP?
I have checked on the website link you've shared, and I have "LSCache is supported, and LiteSpeed cache is a hit"

Sorry that was a mistake, I've edited my original post. If the cache checker says LiteSpeed cache is a hit for the home page then the home page should be able to handle hundreds/thousands of requests per second given sufficient network bandwidth. However it might be that your load testing method requests different pages or sends different headers which cause LiteSpeed not to serve the cached content.

Adrien

Adam Thank you very much.

I still do not understand the Thread. @PradeepC tested head-to-head the same server, same OLS server, and same site RC vs Enhance. Both had cache disabled.

Enhance: 500 visitors
RC: 5K visitors

We try to explain what could have caused such a difference.

AdamM Probably in Enhance your site is only served by php.

But @PradeepC seems to have tested OLS Enhance VS OLS RC. I'm putting Nginx aside for now.
Both Enhance and RC had LSCP disabled so both served by PHP only.

AdamM The problem is that even when the client disables the cache or disables the plugin, it exposes the server to overloading. I talked to Adam about it. This is supposed to be fixed in v2 litespeed.

But isn't this issue common in both RC and Enhance and even any host running OLS/Litespeed Enterprise? If you disable LSCP, you disable the cache too.

PradeepC Thanks a lot @AdamM! I know it will be fixed soon by the team! Also, we will soon be able to use NginX with Enhance. Hope it comes with FastCGI proxy or something.

Is your solution to this performance issue to go Nginx over OLS/Litespeed Enterprise?

Sorry guys for all my questions ;0

AdamM

Adrien That's why it bothers me too.
I'm wondering if there's a better way to solve this.

Adam

For there to be such a discrepancy in performance (all other things being equal) then something must be being cached on the Runcloud instance which isn't being cached on the Enhance instance, despite there being no caching plugins installed.

Tweaks like opcode caching do make a bit of a difference to PHP performance (you can toggle this under "developer settings") but not enough to account for a 10 fold difference.

Zoinkies

Adam any eta on lsconfig? It’s possibly one of the most important things we need far ahead of 90% on the roadmap.

Adam

Zoinkies

Current ETA is late March. I'm aware this is behind the roadmap but we need to make sure it's absolutely production ready before releasing the feature.

Zoinkies

Adam Strufe, it went from February, to end of February to beginning of March to end of March 🙁

AdamM

Adam Maybe it will be possible to release the permanent saving of the settings made in the litespeed admin panel faster? Because now they just reset.

Zoinkies

AdamM It’s this is causing us issues 🙁

Adam

AdamM

It's the same feature. LiteSpeed config is built from our own structured data - it's what allows you to switch so easily between Apache, LiteSpeed, OpenLiteSpeed and (soon) Nginx.

AdamM

Zoinkies @Zoinkies
By the way. Do you know if it is possible to get a cheaper litespeed license?Buy from some partner with discount or something

Zoinkies

AdamM To my knowledge no, you can bulk discount but that’s 20+ licenses and it’s around £2k per month or something maddening. Edit: I know they’re increasing prices soon.

Adrien

AdamM I chose the ownership option. It made more sense in my financials, and I believe Litespeed is here to stay. Otherwise, the monthly license cost was too high.

Adrien

Zoinkies In your dreams only ;-)
In LS reality, one license = 1 server.

Zoinkies I know they’re increasing prices soon.

This is bad news. I wasn't expecting that, considering how expensive it already is.

Adrien

@PradeepC @Adam @AdamM
Fortunately, I had saved all of my Loader.io tests from the previous two years.
I have a small client running under woo, and I was able to benchmark. I have just conducted the test on Enhance. Servers are diff. The site is identical.

RC 5950X. 0 - 5000 clients over 1 min
Results: https://bit.ly/2XPCkGk

Enhance 7950X. 0 - 5000 clients over 1 min
Results: https://bit.ly/3IXfUYJ

@PradeepC Would you mind redoing the test?
Something isn't right. A 10-fold difference deserves to be investigated.

We should look into this more and test it with more people in this group so that we can use everyone's knowledge.

Adrien

AdamM I did. Maybe you missed my post above.

Adrien RC 5950X. 0 - 5000 clients over 1 min
Results: https://bit.ly/2XPCkGk

Enhance 7950X. 0 - 5000 clients over 1 min
Results: https://bit.ly/3IXfUYJ

At the moment, the test failed on Enhance. Yes, I'm using Litespeed cache plugin.

Zoinkies

Adam any chance you can release a version of the LS config that saves permanently without ui?

Zoinkies

Adrien on the ownership version can you use it on as many servers as you want?

mendozal

Adrien @Zoinkies I recently moved to enhance self hosted (I was using a cPanel reseller account with Litespeed built in).

In your oppinion, Is it bad/less performant just to use OLS instead of LS? Considering the other option is Apache.

Adrien

@mendozal

mendozal In your oppinion, Is it bad/less performant just to use OLS instead of LS? Considering the other option is Apache.

I had some bad experiences with OLS in the past on RC, but they've made some improvements. It was with headers and UTM tag handling, for example, when it's appended to the URL for your marketing campaigns. The UTM tag wasn't passed.

OLS won't give you these features:

full .htaccess support and its caching
SSL Offloading
A more powerful cache engine
High performance mod_security engine
WordPress Brute Force Attacks Protection
Zero downtime server software upgrade
Version management
ESI support
Redis mass hosting

I have never conducted a serious benchmark between OLS and Enterprise, so I can't say if one is faster.

fbaye

mendozal NGINX competes with LS when configured properly.

mendozal

Adrien I see. I'm currently using OLS, but my client's websites are low traffic ones.

I had issues with .htaccess support and Wordfence wordpress plugin. But for now is manageable.

I just hope I won't hit any of the other missing features. I don't want to pay LS's per server license since it's completely in opposition to Ehnance's per website policy.