Hi,
I was thinking about this after the earlier discussions and was
wondering what people thought about phar? Would this improve
performance if you really needed it?
phar is a bit more complicated story... We'll be doing some work on
performance-testing phar too, but that'll take some time. F
Hi!
I was thinking about this after the earlier discussions and was
wondering what people thought about phar? Would this improve
performance if you really needed it?
phar is a bit more complicated story... We'll be doing some work on
performance-testing phar too, but that'll take some time. F
of phars is a whole other barrel of monkeys.
> -Original Message-
> From: Stanislav Malyshev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 15 May 2008 23:56
> To: fw-general@lists.zend.com
> Subject: Re: [fw-general] Zend Loader performance - benchmark
>
> Hi!
>
> I&#x
al
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 8:23:19 AM
Subject: RE: [fw-general] Zend Loader performance - benchmark
Thx for the benchmarks :) I think there where earlier discussions on this and
the ZF team are working on their own set of benchmarks, it will be interesting
to see how all this compares.
Look
-general@lists.zend.com
Subject: Re: [fw-general] Zend Loader performance - benchmark
Hi!
I've run a benchmark loading 725 framework class files on 5.2 and 5.3 with and
without bytecode caching.
The benchmark uses list of 725 Framework classes and loads them one by one, via
require_once an
Stains,
Great benchmarking and awesome explanations. You are an EXPERT in this area!
Regards,
Shekar
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I've run a benchmark loading 725 framework class files on 5.2 and 5.3 with
> and without bytecode cac
Hi!
I've run a benchmark loading 725 framework class files on 5.2 and 5.3
with and without bytecode caching.
The benchmark uses list of 725 Framework classes and loads them one by
one, via require_once and via Zend_Loader::loadClass. You can see the
files here: http://random-bits-of.info/fw-tes
