Control Web Panel
WebPanel => Information => Topic started by: monkeyking on June 19, 2018, 02:51:55 AM
-
If you can please share your experienced of CWP vs CWPpro.
As for me, what I really after is faster load time for my WordPress sites. So I setup CWP on a VPS with 1 vCore and 2GB RAM. Just one full WordPress site. I used one of my existing sites that fully live. I took a copy of it and moved all data and files to the new domain on this VPS. So the goal is that it's not just a bare bone WordPress default.
I used PHP 7.2.5.
First I tried with only Apache. Then Apache + Nginx. After that Apache + Nginx + Varnish. And finally upgraded to CWPpro because from the CWPpro page said that Varnish will use RAM instead of Disk and it should be faster.
I tested it with pingdom and gtmetrix. I ran the tests over and over until I get a good idea of the average speed. Anyways, here what I found in general.
Apache + Nginx is faster than Apache alone
Apache + Nginx + Varnish is faster than Apache + Nginx
Normal, expected it as advertised.
When I upgraded it to CWPpro I am hoping for an increase as well. But I didn't get that. There was no increase in speed pretty much the same as it was without pro.
Am I missing something? Do I have to configure anything after it's updated? I don't know.
How about you? Did you experience anything different? How is your setup?
-
I don't think they ever said that CWPpro is faster. As far as I know CWPpro includes a bunch of features that CWPfree doesn't have.
Web Servers has nothing to do with CWPfree or CWPpro, they are available in both versions.
-
This is on http://centos-webpanel.com/cwppro
Varnish Cache Server advanced setup by using RAM as cache storage (for best performances)
-
Stil, that has nothing to do with CWP it self since all 3rdParty apps can be managed manually if you know what to do and what to change.
-
I think that's the point. With CWPpro it got that feature and other features that you don't have to be an expert to use. It configured for you. Like me, I don't know how to have Varnish use RAM instead. But I bought pro to test if that feature actually improve my load time but I didn't see any improvement.
-
That's true. I agree with that.
That's the main reason I'm using CWP, because for a lot of things I don't have to login to ssh/ftp to manage something since almost everything is(can be) available inside CWP's web ui, that's also reason why I made few modules for it so I can avoid using consoles almost completely.
-
I have been using CWP for 3+years now. I've tried other panels, but end up coming back to this one because there is so much it can do and it the scripts have played nicely with centos.
There is a bit of a learning curve in terms of layout and how to set up the panel as well as a few bugs here and there. Overall, I have not had many issues with it.
People need to realize that panels do not control how fast your server is. A panel is nothing but a front end tool bringing together apache, mysql, php, and other programs that you installed to your server into one GUI. How you set your server up, the hardware, and the data connection has everything do with your speed.
I would like to see some transparency regarding who the developer(s) are. I have no clue where I am sending money to some guy in Croatia. You could by a spy for all I know ;) It looks like this started out as a pet project by one person who works on it when he could and answers questions when he can. Since I started using it, this has blossomed into a wonderful feature rich control panel.
Problems with this program.
Using Ioncube to encrypt files in cwp is suspect. For all I know, malware could be hidden in those files. I would never run a pay site using CWP because of this unless I decoded and actually saw what was in those files. I already know there is a backdoor built into CWP.
I would like to see some governance in place so this project can grow to be something even better than what it is. The developer needs to give up a bit of control and let the community build. Let trusted people run the website, forums, and bring in developers. I saw a thread asking for help then no one answered those who were willing to help. CWP is a great idea, but I see a potential to be something better.
I am thinking about writing a manual for this control panel, but do not want to waste my time for something that could potentially disappear tomorrow or changes come on a whim.
With that, I appreciate all the hard work the developer has put into this program. I have donated money previously when there wasn't a pro version and now donated for the pro version. That's how pleased I am with the panel.
-
I already know there is a backdoor built into CWP
Wow how come you know that when you failed to decode it?
If they provide you the panel as opensource then how can they sell their pro license?
-
To think there is not would be naive. Whomever I paid communicated with my server or the software pinged their server to make the software pro. So yes, there is a backdoor. It's not rocket science :)
Btw...plenty of companies make lots of money with opensource software. Centos is the opensource community for Redhat. The centos community and Redhat have a symbiotic relationship. Redhat makes money on selling licenses and service. This is what many businesses have gone to. Whomever is writing this software has the right idea by selling ad-ons.
-
Every app and soft has a back door sooner or later, you just need to be prepared for it. What if... worst case could happen. My suggestion to reduce % of attempts is to configure routers firewall that only white listed IP can connect to your server. Use HTTPS, make backups and keep learning.
-
Hey guys, I saw it was mentioned a few times about control panel doesn't make your server faster or that it doesn't have anything to do with speed.
I totally get what you meant. And I agreed.
I know that hardware matter. If you have a 1 vcore and 2 GB Ram then you can beat 2 vcore 8 GB Ram and so on. It doesn't matter in that regard.
But a clean software with the right configuration can have it runs at its best.
I came from another control panel which I will not name. I used it for years but it looks like a dying project. So I found CWP. Anyways, that control panel was not able to use varnish with https. It was not configure for it.
I noticed my load time was faster when I made a switched to CWP and ran Varnish.
I saw on http://centos-webpanel.com/cwppro said, "Varnish Cache Server advanced setup by using RAM as cache storage (for best performances)".
You guys that using pro version noticed any different in that feature? And how do you know that Varnish is using RAM for cache storage?
-
I would also like to know / understand how to configure and will it be faster with - Varnish Cache Server advanced setup by using RAM as cache storage (for best performances).
Tried Use RAM as storage (memory available 12G):
Stopping Varnish Cache: [ OK ]
Starting Varnish Cache: [ OK ]
[ OK ]
No changes, the box is empty ::)
(https://preview.ibb.co/b70D9o/image.png) (https://ibb.co/m9rLpo)
-
@johnny09
First I would like to know what version are you on? I am on CWPpro version: 0.9.8.676. I don't have that screen. I have this.
(https://preview.ibb.co/i2Apjo/Capture.jpg)
Anyways, I contacted support about Varnish in pro verison using RAM as storage. So it turned out that it used to be for pro but now it's also in free version as well.
Malloc is that feature using RAM for storage. I guess it's default in the free version and pro.
I tried to increase storage to 4GB but still same thing, no improvement. I guess that's that. This end the PRO vs FREE regarding Varnish.
-
CWPpro version: 0.9.8.505
Here:
(https://preview.ibb.co/cm1h4o/image.png) (https://ibb.co/hA59jo)
Tried to add info but it stooped to work:
(https://preview.ibb.co/nAGoc8/image.png) (https://ibb.co/nJzkPo)
Had to switch webservers from Apache & Varnish Cache & Nginx Reverse Proxy to Apache & Nginx Reverse Proxy
and then from Apache & Nginx Reverse Proxy to Apache & Varnish Cache & Nginx Reverse Proxy - then it started to work again!
So if someone knows what to add please advice :D
-
Any reason why you don't update your CWP? I don't have those options as you do.
-
Updates on automatic - I run centos 6, you run centos 7
-
How to increase Vanish performance?
(https://image.ibb.co/cfWtey/image.png) (https://imgbb.com/)
-
You are right I am on Centos 7. I just increase my memory to 4096. But I don't see any improvement in performance. I think that's it. That's all you can push for performance. I guess anything else will depend on hardware.
-
It will never optimize your website unless you create varnish rules for your software/website. So moving to hdd or ram allocation wont help unless you follow varnish rules.
Like if you are running wordpress you can search github for premade vcl and use it for your website
https://github.com/search?q=varnish+wordpress
-
It will never optimize your website unless you create varnish rules for your software/website. So moving to hdd or ram allocation wont help unless you follow varnish rules.
Like if you are running wordpress you can search github for premade vcl and use it for your website
https://github.com/search?q=varnish+wordpress
Just great, now I am even more confused.
-
It will never optimize your website unless you create varnish rules for your software/website. So moving to hdd or ram allocation wont help unless you follow varnish rules.
Like if you are running wordpress you can search github for premade vcl and use it for your website
https://github.com/search?q=varnish+wordpress
Big thank you. I follow those guides and I noticed that Varnish is working properly now. I used to see Age=0 when I ran tests with tools like pingdom. On second run then I see Age like 10 or so or some other numbers. Then it would dropped back to 0 every so often. Now Age always equal to some numbers. My first test run is almost always as good as second run.
Also, I had issues with "Reduce server response time". I did a lot of homework on this too. And found out that Cloudflare was the cause. They have issues with TTFB (time to first byte). They wrote about it here. https://blog.cloudflare.com/ttfb-time-to-first-byte-considered-meaningles/
I hope that help.