That’s fine, but I don’t really appreciate being told I am ‘wrong’, we have different opinions but that’s all they are. Virtually everything you are writing is an opinion not any kind of fact.
With that said, I do just want to answer a couple of your points.
It’s very common, search Google: “Litespeed WordPress 403 error” and “Litespeed WordPress 503 error” you can find hundreds of results
Yes, true. I just searched for ‘LiteSpeed WordPress 403 error’ and got 36,300 results. I also searched for ‘nginx WordPress 403 errror’ and got 453,000 results. I didn’t search for Apache, but I’m sure there are plenty of those as well.
For a lot of people nginx config is a lot more complex simply because they are used to using Apache and so anything following the same familiar config system is good for them.
Again, are we talking about stability and high-traffic security? (yes I am) then .htaccess is a joke to consider including that… when you say “but people like it” I think you really mean that shared cPanel hosting companies like it because they can put 100 customers on the server using .htacess and vhosts
No, that’s not what I mean, see my point above. It’s also not necessarily unstable or a huge security risk depending on how everything is set up.
I’m not going to enter into a big debate about what the best caching to use for a WP site is, but I disagree with you. In our internal speed tests with about 12 different WP caching plugins, all setup correctly, the LSCache plugin on an LSWS server and using Redis is always in the top 3 fastest.
the ESI feature is one of the foolish features ever made for WordPress cache plugins, how can the average WordPress site even begin to configure that correctly? that is made for bloated sites that tried to hide some bad performance… but you need some genius to configure properly
ESI is incredibly useful and the config for it with the LSCache plugin is really simple it just involves adding a shortcode to areas of the site you want to exclude from the cache.
It has nothing at all to do with bloat or hiding bad performance, it allows you to set much longer cache times for all of the static content on the site, while ensuring that dynamic elements are never out of date.
please find any sites from Alexa Top 100 using Litespeed server? I never saw any… only Nginx seriously
Putting aside the fact that Alexa metric is massively flawed and not a real representation of anything at all, I don’t have the time or inclination to look at what servers each of their ‘top’ sites is using, but…
I would guess that a lot of the top 10 will be using GWS because they will be owned by Google, I’d also guess that quite a lot will report as CloudFlare Server and won’t expose what actual server the site is hosted on. Of whatever number are left, probably about 45%-50% will be nginx, with the rest split between Apache, LiteSpeed (I’d guess probably just 2-3%) and other servers.
But the top 100 sites which have massive amounts of traffic are not representative of what most people are doing or need to do, they are sites which have huge dev teams and highly experienced sys admins, with little limit to resources. They need to optimise things in ways that the vast majority of sites don’t and I guarantee that whatever server they are running on, it’s not a quick ‘out of the box’ install but a highly optimised one to fit their own needs.
At the risk of sounding repetitive and boring, both of the servers under discussion here are very good, for some of the same and some different reasons. To trash either one of them and declare that the other is so much better is simply not true.