[OT] RE: very off topic marketing question
From: Christopher Schultz [ch...@christopherschultz.net] I wonder how the folks over at Wikipedia feel about their PHP-based system. I suspect they get a significant amount of load. And, indeed, Facebook. I'm not sure who gets more hits! There are some big, big PHP systems out there, and they clearly work. I'm not trying to be combative... I'm just really interested in how they feel their scalability feels to them. Quite. I'd be fascinated. I also wonder how much the limiting factor on the big sites is scaling the database, not scaling the front-end services - but that's getting *really* off-topic! - Peter - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
[OT] RE: very off topic marketing question
From: Martin Gainty [mailto:mgai...@hotmail.com] Apache is hamstrung by the number of prefork processes it can spawn.. Yes. For this job, it's hamstrung by the PHP process being single-threaded and therefore having to spawn and keep multiple copies (each with its own address space) to handle concurrent requests. In other words: PHP (at least up to PHP5) is architecturally unsuitable for high-throughput services. It can be made to work, as Facebook demonstrates; but there are better architectures that have lower overhead. Actually, that's an interesting question. I wonder how many tonnes of carbon would be saved per annum if Facebook were reimplemented in something that allowed multiple threading and smaller sessions, such as Mono/ASP.Net or glassfish/servlets? ducks and runs to avoid the PHP lynch mob - Peter - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
