Search results

No. The TTFB is not exclusively, but decisively influenced by the packet runtimes. This means that the closer your host is to the GtMetrix test server, the smaller the TTFB. You can improve the TTFB with a page cache, but it only gets really better with a CDN. However, this applies with...

You are welcome. :)

It seems you purge the cache manually very often? I don't know if OLS works like LSWS, but with LSWS the cache directory is automatically cleaned, but the automatic cleaning only works for cache files whose TTL has expired. That means, if you purge the cache manually this automatically cleaning...

@ksteam You should read this: https://wordpress.org/support/topic/page-caching-not-detected/

We updated demo section. Now for the current version there are demos available for: Kitt Cache Crawler for LiteSpeed Cache Plugin for Wordpress https://www.wp.cachecrawler.com/kitt/ Kitt Cache Crawler for W3 Total Cache https://www.w3tc.cachecrawler.com/kitt/ Kitt Cache Crawler for LiteSpeed...

There is nothing wrong, but to understand why there is nothing wrong you have to understand what caching means. You already got answers for your question in LiteSpeed support forum, so you should know what has to be done to make your request work.

....because you are conditioned on Apache. Apache used to be good, but it was at least 20 years ago. So it could also be said that you are someone from the past who has slept through the present? Again, what Apache does or has done does not always comply with the RFC.

Again, adapt to the situation or wear yourself out. You have every right to complain, but in the end you have to adapt to the situation.

FYI: LiteSpeed is a small company with only a few employees who are constantly changing. You can hope for a lot, but expect very little. Especially no big changes. Much of what LiteSpeed does is good and follows a coherent philosophy, but the low staffing makes it difficult to change that...

I'm the wrong person to direct your criticism to. I've been working with LSWS for more than 10 years and have learned my lessons that the rules of the game are just a little different with LSWS|OLS. Accept these rules of the game or wear yourself out by them. In the end you can't change anything...

That's an honor, but things are a little different in sales and marketing.

That doesn't necessarily mean that LiteSpeed is doing something different or wrong. It has turned out in recent years that Apache has not adhered to the RFC.

Do you also believe in Santa Claus or the promises of advertising? ;)

Forget Apache. With LSWS|OLS the rules of the game are a bit different. ;)

No, it doesn't, at least not with me and if I append headers in .htaccess and with LSWS.

Header append does the same and is the preferred method to add headers with the same name, at least with LSWS.

Congratulation, but use this link: ;) https://store.litespeedtech.com/store/aff.php?aff=320

Okay, dump OLS and use LSWS instead.....

Did you ever set a simple test header like:? header set x-testheader "test" I remember an issue with LSWS in the past where I couldn't set a header because LSWS wanted to get header append instead of header set. I just can't imagine OLS refusing to set a header?!

I think you should check OLS configuration....