PROTECTED]
Sent: 07 April 2008 09:54
To: fw-general@lists.zend.com
Subject: RE: [fw-general] ZF performance advice
Ralf Kramer wrote:
On my development box I have average excecution times between 0.2 and
0.4. This is an ubuntu linux, but it runs on a vmware workstation.
Though, Zend
Hi Dennis,
unless you plan to serve this website from your laptop, do NOT profile
it on your laptop!! And unless you plan to serve empty pages, why are
you profiling empty pages?
You are making a big mistake. Early optimization is the root of all
evil, and this is *real* early optimization (even
]
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 8:43 PM
To: fw-general@lists.zend.com
Subject: Re: [fw-general] ZF performance advice
Dennis Fogg wrote:
I completed the basic structure of my ZF infrastructure
and noticed that it seemed quite slow.
Summary:
My Zend framework page generation
Am Mittwoch, den 17.10.2007, 23:26 -0700 schrieb Andi Gutmans:
There's no chance you'll even be close to the ridiculously slow
performance you are getting now and you may even find that your
optimizations (with the right config) will give you much less bang for
the buck.
On my development box
Dennis Fogg wrote:
I completed the basic structure of my ZF infrastructure
and noticed that it seemed quite slow.
Summary:
My Zend framework page generation time went from 1.2 sec to 0.4 sec using a
number of techniques. I compare my performance with Rob Allen's tutorial
code (which has
We tested now a couple of months and eAccelerator was working with 5.0.x
but just partially with 5.1.x and 5.2.x. Later some people i know tried
same thing and eAccelerator wasn't working as expected on 5.2.x.
No idea now, but due to slow development i won't recommend eAccelerator
for
-- Dennis Fogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
(on Friday, 12 October 2007, 06:03 PM -0700):
I did some more investigation:
I'm not getting much of a performance boost from either eAccelerator or Zend
Optimizer
over no op code cache for my ZF infrastructure, which is a bit of a
surprise.
I
-- Lepidosteus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
(on Friday, 12 October 2007, 07:14 PM +0200):
On 10/12/07, Matthew Weier O'Phinney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First off, I've heard that eaccelerator and xcache's approaches to
opcode caching may not be terribly performant; switching to APC or Zend
Dennis Fogg wrote:
I used MySQL this time and the db connection times are quick! About 0.02
- 0.03 sec on my computer compared to 0.57 sec with Postgres.
Found the performance bug in my ZF infrastructure and wanted to report the
real results here
(I don't want to incorrectly characterize
-- Dennis Fogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
(on Thursday, 11 October 2007, 06:36 PM -0700):
I completed the basic structure of my ZF infrastructure
and noticed that it seemed quite slow.
So, I did some performance profiling and used some
performance tools only to find that ZF is pretty slow for
On 10/12/07, Lepidosteus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/12/07, Matthew Weier O'Phinney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First off, I've heard that eaccelerator and xcache's approaches to
opcode caching may not be terribly performant; switching to APC or Zend
Platform would likely help achieve
On 10/12/07, Matthew Weier O'Phinney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First off, I've heard that eaccelerator and xcache's approaches to
opcode caching may not be terribly performant; switching to APC or Zend
Platform would likely help achieve better results.
Don't know who said you that one, but he
On 10/12/07, Dennis Fogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm using Apache 2.2.4 and I just tried out
your MS Windows conjecture by trying:
?php
echo Windows or Zend Framework?;
echo time= . xdebug_time_index();
?
which generally returns the page in .004 sec (4 ms) with a few spikes that
take
Hi
On 10/12/07, Dennis Fogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(...)
-use eAccelerator as opcode cache
I am sure you probably had no issues yet, but I ran into plenty of
weirdness with eAccelerator and Zend Framework, but I had no issues
with APC.
My ZF infrastructure currently does the following:
resultsets from database queries?
thanks
-Mensaje original-
De: till [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Enviado el: viernes, 12 de octubre de 2007 10:41
Para: Dennis Fogg
CC: fw-general@lists.zend.com
Asunto: Re: [fw-general] ZF performance advice
Hi
On 10/12/07, Dennis Fogg [EMAIL PROTECTED
resultsets from database queries?
thanks
-Mensaje original-
De: till [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Enviado el: viernes, 12 de octubre de 2007 10:41
Para: Dennis Fogg
CC: fw-general@lists.zend.com
Asunto: Re: [fw-general] ZF performance advice
Hi
On 10/12/07, Dennis Fogg [EMAIL PROTECTED
I will repeat what i said now couple of months.
eAccelerator is kinda obsolete due to fact he doesn't support PHP 5.2.x
properly (can't remember now if for 5.1.x is same thing). Even if PHP
5.2 is released by some time eAccelerator wasn't updated to properly
support newer PHP versions.
On 10/12/07, Cristian Bichis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I will repeat what i said now couple of months.
eAccelerator is kinda obsolete due to fact he doesn't support PHP 5.2.x
properly (can't remember now if for 5.1.x is same thing). Even if PHP
5.2 is released by some time eAccelerator wasn't
tfk wrote:
Just curious - but do they really work? I know that supposedly a
persistant connection is re-used and you save the overhead of
establishing the connection etc. - but have you check if it actually
works?
I have not done any sql with my db connection yet so I don't have
I did some more investigation:
I'm not getting much of a performance boost from either eAccelerator or Zend
Optimizer
over no op code cache for my ZF infrastructure, which is a bit of a
surprise.
I decided to try optimization on code that everyone can try.
I loaded Rob Allen's current ZF
Does your app rely on autoload or even do you use
Zend_Loader::loadClass() a lot?
Just a bit curious
On Oct 12, 2007, at 9:03 PM, Dennis Fogg wrote:
I did some more investigation:
I'm not getting much of a performance boost from either
eAccelerator or Zend
Optimizer
over no op code
Dennis Fogg wrote:
tfk wrote:
Just curious - but do they really work? I know that supposedly a
persistant connection is re-used and you save the overhead of
establishing the connection etc. - but have you check if it actually
works?
I have not done any sql with my db connection
On 10/11/07, Dennis Fogg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I completed the basic structure of my ZF infrastructure
and noticed that it seemed quite slow.
snip
Over 20+ runs, I got the following data:
.57 sec (44%) for db connection even though it's persistent connection
.26 sec (20%) for
It depends alot on how you are loading those modules too. I try to use a
load on request for the less used classes (using autoload) and load the
heavily used classes in the bootstrap so they are available to the
entire app.
Major speed improvements when I use static methods in my own classes
Hi Mike,
Thanks for your quick reply. I'm using Apache 2.2.4 and I just tried out
your MS Windows conjecture by trying:
?php
echo Windows or Zend Framework?;
echo time= . xdebug_time_index();
?
which generally returns the page in .004 sec (4 ms) with a few spikes that
take longer.
So it seems
Hi Parnell,
Thanks for the performance tips and references!
Yes, I am loading a number of my own files in unoptimized ways.
But my profiling tells me that it does not matter (at this point anyway)
since the times are dominated by ZF code.
Yeah, I did notice a blip in Zend_log also. I
26 matches
Mail list logo
