Is Litespeed faster than Apache?

[Dman]

Maybe it's faster, but after recent exploits, I don't think anyone would use their software. Plus, lighthttpd is good as well, and best of all FREE.

[Krun!x]

When it comes to DDoS attacks apache sucks. About 70-80 bots and each of them has about 100 connections on apache and it kills it.
After that I tried lighttpd and it was pretty good, I was using it only a couple of weeks and it seemed better and faster than apache(even when it comes to DDoS attacks).
When I tried lsws I was amazed, great speed and even better DDoS capabilities(it was more important to me then since I was getting DDoS'd a lot). lsws can be even faster if you configure it well...

About lsws 0day, this shit doesn't exist. If you were reading anti-sec paper when they root'd astalavista you could notice - they wget'd local root exploit and executed it without chmoding. It means they didn't have +x(execute) perms and there is no way they executed an exploit without it.
If they fake local root exploit, they did it with lsws 0day most probably. They got access in some other way.

[SplitIce]

Litespeed is alot faster when configured correctly. But lacks some of apache's features (xslt for 1). Lighttpd doesnt support a decent mod rewrite, people just stick with apache and if needed add a lighttpd server for static files.

[JmZ]

Lighttpd's mod rewrite is excellent.
Their way of doing it is far better in my opinion and is much more code-like.

I'd never use litespeed as it's overpriced and cracked versions are old. Also it is not as fast as apache in all situations, lighttpd beats it in most setups. Ill stick with lighttpd, free and faster than both most of the time with a good config.