At 09:51 AM 2/26/2002 +0900, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote: >August wrote: > >>I find DSO useful for testing and development, but for deployment it >>makes little sense to be using DSO, the cost of 60 seconds of compile is >>negligible when looking at something that will be installed for >>timeframes exceeding a day or two, especially for larger server farms. > >The benefit of DSO is loading modules without compile whole apache. > >For instance, I would like to use info or status module when >I have problem with my web servers, but I don't want to enable >them all the time.
we (I think august and i think the same, sorry dude if I'm mistaken :) :) ) understand the DSO concept *and* your point. Nonetheless, when you know you're gonna use php extensively, why bother a few more minutes of compilation and lose 40% of performance. Static build is the way to go in those cases. On other situations, i agree DSO is a good way (eg info and status you mentioned). I have in charge today a few million users (large web portal here :) ), and let me tell ya : statically built-in IS the way to go. We have seen major drawbacks with DSO. I'm not really sure why though since the module is loaded into memory at Apache startup BUT it definitely is less performant than when it's built in. (i wouldn't say 40% though but even 10% is huge). I'd really like to try out apache 2 and php but I really can't compile it (see an early mail). I know i've asked twice before but has ANYONE succeeded in compiling apache 2 and php in a STATIC BUILD (not --with-apxs but --with-apache) ? Thanks to answer me (privately if you don't want to bother the list). Later, take care -- Mark Villemade Hosting Services Technical Manager MultiMania / Lycos (int) +33 1 53 27 24 05 -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
