I asked this months ago but never got a response. I didn't want to reply to the original post in case you ban me for digging up new posts... So I'm starting a fresh.
Lighttpd - are you likely to implement this? If not, why not? There's quite a few sites out there that use it now with great results. Facebook appear to be moving over to it too, from Apache. Surely if web giants like them are moving to something new along with other major sites, you should at least be considering doing the same?
Apache is slower than lighttpd from what I've seen and been told - but that said, why couldn't you at least give people the option of either using Apache or Lighttpd?
Litespeed appears to be another interesting web server, which actually features a WHM plugin allowing you to administer everything from WHM itself, and switch between Apache/Litespeed, replacing Apache completely, or even run both alongside for testing purposes. Litespeed appears to feature full support for existing Apache configurations - I installed the trial yesterday and managed to switch every site on my server to LS in a matter of minutes - using their plugin, it replicated the exact Apache settings and PHP build + config into Litespeed - there was no extra configurations involved, it just worked, and every page instantly loaded in half the time.
It's things like this that make Apache look bad... I'm not saying Apache is awful and shouldn't be used - it's been around for ages and is still the market leader, but there are other solutions out there... Are you going to include these in future builds of cPanel?
That said, future builds of cPanel, I've noticed updates of cPanel have been becoming less and less over the past few months. Is the cPanel project slowly dying off or something? I mean the last security update for Apache was rolled out, then back again and since still hasn't been issued. Why is this?
Is cPanel in trouble, or is there another explanation?
Lighttpd - are you likely to implement this? If not, why not? There's quite a few sites out there that use it now with great results. Facebook appear to be moving over to it too, from Apache. Surely if web giants like them are moving to something new along with other major sites, you should at least be considering doing the same?
Apache is slower than lighttpd from what I've seen and been told - but that said, why couldn't you at least give people the option of either using Apache or Lighttpd?
Litespeed appears to be another interesting web server, which actually features a WHM plugin allowing you to administer everything from WHM itself, and switch between Apache/Litespeed, replacing Apache completely, or even run both alongside for testing purposes. Litespeed appears to feature full support for existing Apache configurations - I installed the trial yesterday and managed to switch every site on my server to LS in a matter of minutes - using their plugin, it replicated the exact Apache settings and PHP build + config into Litespeed - there was no extra configurations involved, it just worked, and every page instantly loaded in half the time.
It's things like this that make Apache look bad... I'm not saying Apache is awful and shouldn't be used - it's been around for ages and is still the market leader, but there are other solutions out there... Are you going to include these in future builds of cPanel?
That said, future builds of cPanel, I've noticed updates of cPanel have been becoming less and less over the past few months. Is the cPanel project slowly dying off or something? I mean the last security update for Apache was rolled out, then back again and since still hasn't been issued. Why is this?
Is cPanel in trouble, or is there another explanation?
Last edited:
What you cite as 'cPanel updates' is really updates to the EasyApache application. Most of what goes into that application now are either bug fixes or updates to 3rd party products, such as SQLite. The Apache 2.2.x fix was removed because it breaks too many things. Once the patch is improved, or 2.2.12 is released, the fix will be reimplemented.