No, you misunderstood.
The reason for using Litespeed is that Litespeed is usually faster than Apache serving static files (and only in this case). First of all, this is not 100% accurate. I know how to configure Apache to be just as fast or faster than stock Litespeed. But that's besides the point here.
Our site is already behind CloudFlare CDN. This means that the static files are not served by our server, they are served by CloudFlare CDN. That's the entire reason for using CloudFlare. It caches the static files and delivers them to our clients from edge nodes which are closer to our clients and which respond much faster than our web server could possibly do.
Our web server only serves dynamic content (PHP). The speed of PHP execution depends only on PHP, the script and the database server. It does NOT depend on the web server at all.
As a result we have no reason to use Litespeed over Apache.
Nicholas K. Dionysopoulos
Lead Developer and Director
🇬🇷Greek: native 🇬🇧English: excellent 🇫🇷French: basic • 🕐 My time zone is Europe / Athens
Please keep in mind my timezone and cultural differences when reading my replies. Thank you!