The web server landscape is rich and diverse, with technologies constantly evolving to meet the increasingly sophisticated needs of users. Amid this cacophony of solutions, LiteSpeed has stood out, gaining traction and attracting the industry's attention. Many see LiteSpeed as the future, a panacea for the needs of web projects, from the smallest to the largest. However, a deeper and more detailed reflection might reveal a different truth: LiteSpeed's popularity may be attributed less to its intrinsic technological superiority and more to a widespread lack of technical skills among system administrators.
NGINX and Varnish represent the pinnacle of web server technology. Used by high-end enterprises, giant media organizations, and massively trafficked e-commerce platforms, these tools have become synonymous with robust performance and superior quality. Their open-source architecture and extensive developer community support ensure unparalleled flexibility, making them highly customizable tools to meet the most diverse needs.
We've discussed this extensively in this post, LiteSpeed Web Server Review. However, it's really difficult to propose a better technology when the public hears everywhere about alternative technologies, more popular and portrayed as the best solution on the market. What's happening is exactly what happened in the VHS vs. Betamax affair.
In the 70s and 80s, Betamax and VHS were the two major videotape formats, creating a famous "format war". Sony first introduced Betamax in 1975, with much higher recording quality and in less space. However, JVC introduced the VHS format the following year, which allowed for a longer recording time. Despite Betamax's superior quality, VHS became more popular due to its longer shelf life, and the support of more manufacturers. Eventually, VHS emerged as the de facto standard in the home video industry.
However, the power of these tools lies in their proper use. It's not enough to simply install them on the server and leave them to their own devices. Each technology requires careful management and customized configuration to be used to its full potential. And this is where the role of the systems administrator becomes crucial.
A competent systems engineer understands the intricate details of server stack management. It includes how to adjust the cache, how to check the Cache Control and how to perform a selective cleaning of the cache. Has the expertise to handle performance and hit ratio issues. He understands the potential of NGINX and Varnish and knows how to leverage them to provide an unmatched user experience and optimal search engine rankings.
Unfortunately, the industry is full of system administrators who lack these crucial skills. This skill gap can lead to suboptimal implementation and management of NGINX and Varnish, which in turn can cause performance issues and a disappointing user experience. It's no surprise that in these scenarios, LiteSpeed might seem like a more attractive and promising solution.
For example, a particularly significant challenge is selecting an appropriate cache Time To Live (TTL). A suitable cache TTL is essential to ensure that cached content doesn't become stale, compromising the user experience. Unfortunately, many system administrators aren't familiar with the nuances of this critical setting and may choose a TTL that isn't adequate for the specific needs of their client's website.
A related issue is managing selective cache purging. This is an essential technique that allows you to selectively remove specific content from the cache without having to clear the entire cache. This is particularly important for large, dynamic websites, where completely clearing the cache could lead to significant performance penalties. Again, many system administrators lack the expertise to properly implement this feature.
Finally, there's the issue of optimizing the cache hit ratio. A high hit ratio means that most requests can be served directly from the cache, thus improving performance. However, achieving a high hit ratio requires careful configuration and monitoring, skills that are often lacking in less experienced system administrators.
In these following Screenshots we can see two Hosting managers, the first a professional Hoster complete with SRL, the second a semi-professional Hoster who however is preparing to try to obtain the assignment of important orders. It is self-evident and undisputed that their considerations are absolutely wrong across the board.
In the case above, for example, the gross error is to think that every time a user or editorial team writes a post, the cache must be manually cleared or even the system administrator must be involved . It's clear that there are plugins capable of using hooks like WordPress's save_post() and performing a selective purge of the post, categories, feeds, and any sitemaps. While emphasizing the seriousness of this statement, it's fair to consider that the incident occurred several years ago; therefore, it's now certain that this misunderstanding has been logically overcome. However, it's also true that this provider has never offered enterprise services based on NGINX and Varnish, but promoted itself by directly offering LiteSpeed in order to find a service more suited to its skills. As a matter of policy, we won't name names to protect and respect the professionalism of each provider.
As you can see from the screenshot above, this is an example of a provider who, despite offering hosting services, doesn't fully understand the benefits associated with a long TTL.
A long TTL, for example of a week or even a month, can offer significant advantages, especially when dealing with content that does not change frequently.
However, setting a TTL as low as 12 hours, as in this case, can create a number of inefficiencies. One of these concerns the speed with which content is served to users. With a shorter TTL, older content is evicted from the cache more frequently, meaning it has to be fetched anew from the server each time. This process can increase server response time, known as Time To First Byte (TTFB), especially if your site's backend or application is not optimized to provide high performance.
A longer TTL, on the other hand, allows content to be held in the cache for longer periods of time, reducing how often it has to be fetched from the server. This can lead to a significant improvement in TTFB and consequently a smoother and faster user experience.
Additionally, a longer TTL can reduce the load on the backend server, saving resources that can be used to manage other critical aspects of the site. This can be especially beneficial for sites with a high volume of traffic or limited server resources.
The fact of finding also in this case absolutely an exception to speak of selective Purge when speaking of Varnish Cache, suggests that there are big gaps to be filled and an absolutely insufficient cultural baggage to offer hosting services at a professional level.
Obviously these are just two obvious examples of how much improvisation can reign in this world of "professionals" many of whom also lack academic training, such as a degree course or at least related studies. In reality, the problem is much broader and the gaps are truly many and varied.
That's why Litespeed while having less flexibility in customization and implementation of complex projects, however has to its advantage a basic configuration that is sufficiently better than most of what many "colleagues" are able to offer using more powerful and complex tools such as NGINX and Varnish.
However, this perception does not imply LiteSpeed's superiority over NGINX or Varnish. Rather, it highlights the importance of system skills for the correct management and configuration of the server stack. LiteSpeed's success is therefore a reflection of the shortage of systems engineering expertise in the industry, rather than a tribute to its technological superiority.
Similarly, companies like WordPress VIP and Fastly, which handle hosting for big-name clients like CNN, The New York Times, BuzzFeed, and many more, demonstrate the effectiveness of NGINX and Varnish. These companies have invested heavily in developing the technical skills needed to manage and configure NGINX and Varnish to their full potential. Unsurprisingly, they opted for these technologies rather than LiteSpeed.
In conclusion, it is important to remember that the choice of technology should not depend on its popularity, but on its effectiveness in fulfilling project requirements. While LiteSpeed may seem attractive for its apparent merits, NGINX and Varnish, when managed properly, offer superior performance, scalability, and flexibility. What really matters is the systemic expertise needed to make the most of these tools.
