On Jan 25, 2008 6:18 PM, Akins, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/24/08 3:14 PM, "Olaf van der Spek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Working on making a FastCGI based setup the recommended approach > > instead of mod_php is probably more important then async. Actually, > > it's a prerequisite. > > Fastcgi is the "recommended way of using php and httpd 2, AFAIK. Isn't it???
Where can I read about that recommendation? I can't find it in the Apache or PHP manuals. mod_php appears to be *the* solution. > > What about a hybrid approach? > > Async for network IO and other stuff that doesn't require sync calls, > > worker threads for other parts? > > That's kind of what I was thinking after Apachecon US this year. I won't > speak for others, but it seemed reasonable to most. However, after doing > several real world tests, I just don't honestly see that async will be a > huge improvement. Please prove me wrong with real world results. I'd be > more than happy to be wrong on this, really. I don't have real world test results. Have you tested the 30k scenario with an async web server? And do all platforms have such cheap threading as your test platform? > To be honest, I don't have strong feelings either way. I was surprised by > my results. I, now, think that completely rewriting the core to be async > *may be* a "waste of resources." If it fits nicely into some ideas on > reengineering buckets and brigades (ala serf stuff), and does not actually > decrease overall performance, then by all means do it. > > Remember, I'm partially playing devil's advocate as well... I noticed. ;)
