Hello,
to have a performance problem with apache/mod_php5 configuration under heavy
load the website becomes too slow.
Using strace I found what appears to me a strange behavior
The strange behavior I want point out is related to a sequence of tentative
httpd/mod_php5 does in order to read an php
On 20.06.2010, at 10:49, Vincenzo D'Amore wrote:
Hello,
to have a performance problem with apache/mod_php5 configuration under heavy
load the website becomes too slow.
Using strace I found what appears to me a strange behavior
The strange behavior I want point out is related to a sequence
Hi,
Unfortunately, your web application abused include_path. You can change WP
source code to include PHP files using absolute path
Regards,
Dinh
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Vincenzo D'Amore v.dam...@gmail.comwrote:
Hello,
to have a performance problem with apache/mod_php5
Hi.
Shouldn't we seeing failed lstats if the include_path would be the problem?
And I thought that the php engine itself tries to cache the fileinfo, to
minimize the lstat calls ( see
http://hu.php.net/manual/en/function.clearstatcache.php )
So I think that we shouldn't see this much duplicate
Yes, right.
# /usr/libexec/php5-cgi/bin/php -v
PHP 5.2.9 (cli) (built: Sep 14 2009 16:52:55)
Copyright (c) 1997-2009 The PHP Group
Zend Engine v2.2.0, Copyright (c) 1998-2009 Zend Technologies
with the ionCube PHP Loader v3.1.33, Copyright (c) 2002-2007, by ionCube
Ltd.
# httpd -V
Server
Hi Dinh,
sorry, I don't get why having a wrong include_path configuration inside WP
should have a negative outcome like have 8 tentatives in order to read this
file.
Regards,
Vincenzo
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Dinh pcd...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Unfortunately, your web application
If you have more than once directory in your include path, then the engine
have to look up the given file in each of the given directories, which is in
the worst case scenario (the given file is in the directory which is in the
last in the include path) could mean N lookup, where N is the number
Johannes Schlüter schrieb:
On Sat, 2010-06-19 at 12:45 +0200, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
Am 19.06.2010 11:33, schrieb Patrick ALLAERT:
What are the possible actions/alternatives?
I think this was already mentioned: add a BC layer to ext/mysqli so
that the new extension supports the old
Hi,
are you using the suhosin patch for PHP ? I can see the same lstat
behaviour with my setups, because of suhosin.
But for the 8 tentative of reading, are you sure php deliver only one
page here ?
Olivier
Le 20/06/2010 08:49, Vincenzo D'Amore a écrit :
Hello,
to have a performance
On 20.06.2010, at 12:01, Ulf Wendel wrote:
Johannes Schlüter schrieb:
On Sat, 2010-06-19 at 12:45 +0200, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
Am 19.06.2010 11:33, schrieb Patrick ALLAERT:
What are the possible actions/alternatives?
I think this was already mentioned: add a BC layer to ext/mysqli so
On 6/19/10 11:49 PM, Vincenzo D'Amore wrote:
Could anybody explain me why I have this behavior and if it is attributable
to a misconfiguration of php?
This doesn't look like a PHP misconfiguration. It looks more like an
application-level issue. Do a grep for realpath in your application
code.
I for one think it is a really good idea, there is no compelling
reason not to include APC, I would even go as far as say we should
enable it by default.
+1
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen ka...@php.net wrote:
Greetings
As the process for trunk grows, I think we should
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Jonathan Bond-Caron jbo...@openmv.com wrote:
SQLITE_API int sqlite3_busy_timeout(sqlite3*, int ms);
b) No persistent connections
Any reason why it wasn't migrated from sqlite.c?
It is now in trunk.
Cheers,
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net
Is this only useful for 5.2.x and is it only for realpath() or is it for any
sort of path lookup and caching? Like resolving include paths and such?
On Jun 20, 2010, at 6:37 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
realpath_cache_size = 256k
realpath_cache_ttl = 7200
--
PHP Internals -
( Foregot to change address again :( )
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
What are your views on including APC in the core, or reasons not to?
Dictatorship?
Optional module which have well used alternatives should not be proced on by
default! Probably more people use alternatives and have for years?
On 20.06.2010, at 22:21, Lester Caine wrote:
( Foregot to change address again :( )
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
What are your views on including APC in the core, or reasons not to?
Dictatorship?
Optional module which have well used alternatives should not be proced on by
default! Probably
+1 as Lukas, on adding but not enabled by default.
On Jun 20, 2010, at 4:39 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith m...@pooteeweet.org wrote:
On 20.06.2010, at 22:21, Lester Caine wrote:
( Foregot to change address again :( )
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
What are your views on including APC in the core, or
On 6/20/10 1:21 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
( Foregot to change address again :( )
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
What are your views on including APC in the core, or reasons not to?
Dictatorship?
Optional module which have well used alternatives should not be proced
on by default! Probably more
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On 6/20/10 1:21 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
( Foregot to change address again :( )
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
What are your views on including APC in the core, or reasons not to?
Dictatorship?
Optional module which have well used alternatives
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith m...@pooteeweet.orgwrote:
On 20.06.2010, at 22:21, Lester Caine wrote:
( Foregot to change address again :( )
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
What are your views on including APC in the core, or reasons not to?
Dictatorship?
Optional
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
I for one think it is a really good idea, there is no compelling
reason not to include APC, I would even go as far as say we should
enable it by default.
I would like to add it as well; but not turn it on by default. Not
because it wouldn't be
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On 6/20/10 1:21 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
( Foregot to change address again :( )
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
What are your views on including APC in the core, or reasons not to?
Dictatorship?
Optional module which have well used alternatives should not be proced
on by
Perhaps by adding it to core the original reasons for alternatives will be
reduced and the things that make those special could be implemented into apc?
On Jun 20, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Ferenc Kovacs i...@tyrael.hu wrote:
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith
On 6/20/10 2:05 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On 6/20/10 1:21 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
( Foregot to change address again :( )
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
What are your views on including APC in the core, or reasons not to?
Dictatorship?
Optional module which have well used
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On 6/20/10 2:05 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On 6/20/10 1:21 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
( Foregot to change address again :( )
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
What are your views on including APC in the core, or reasons not to?
Dictatorship?
Optional module
hi,
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Perhaps a poll on what people are actually using in production?
The very large majority of the users I met use APC or Zend Cache
solutions. However the point here is that as long as the extension is
not php.net, they
Sure, but that's win32 only
Ilia Alshanetsky
CIO/CSO
Centah Inc.
On 2010-06-20, at 16:54, Derick Rethans der...@php.net wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On 6/20/10 1:21 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
( Foregot to change address again :( )
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
What are your
Hi!
I for one think it is a really good idea, there is no compelling
reason not to include APC, I would even go as far as say we should
enable it by default.
I do not think it is a very good idea. APC has certain effects on the
code that are far from obvious, and enabling it by default would
Hi!
Sure, but that's win32 only
Speaking of which - does apc work for Windows? Last time I checked (more
than a year ago) it was extremely unstable. Was it fixed? What about
other popular PHP platforms?
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
APC has certain effects on the code that are far from obvious, and
enabling it by default would significantly complicate the average
user's learning curve.
Can you elaborate? What average user-facing features are non-obvious?
We should document them if nothing else.
S
--
PHP Internals -
On 6/20/10 2:32 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On 6/20/10 2:05 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On 6/20/10 1:21 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
( Foregot to change address again :( )
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
What are your views on including APC in the core, or reasons not
Ilia Alshanetsky i...@prohost.org wrote in message
news:86a0c51a-e6f7-48f2-a065-eabe74c6a...@prohost.org...
Several reasons:
1) APC is well maintained, by the same people who work on PHP.
2) The license does not preclude it's inclusion into the base version.
3) most people don't use any
Hi
2010/6/21 Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com:
Hi!
Speaking of which - does apc work for Windows? Last time I checked (more
than a year ago) it was extremely unstable. Was it fixed? What about other
popular PHP platforms?
Me and Pierre put quite some work into getting APC to perform
Including into core of PHP has no impact on other opcode caches, if
they do a better job then APC, people can definitely (and should) use
them. The main purpose of including APC would be to raise the level of
awareness PHP users to the fact opcode caches exist and should be used
in virtually all
Hi!
Can you elaborate? What average user-facing features are non-obvious?
We should document them if nothing else.
This recently caught my attention: http://pecl.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=16745
As I understood from this bug, APC changes how PHP works (since it works
without APC but not with
Stas,
Even if the extension is compiled by default, we can (and probably
should) leave apc.enabled at Off, recognizing some the things you are
mentioning.
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 10:44 PM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
Hi!
Can you elaborate? What average user-facing features are
On 6/20/10 7:44 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
Can you elaborate? What average user-facing features are non-obvious?
We should document them if nothing else.
This recently caught my attention:
http://pecl.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=16745
As I understood from this bug, APC changes how PHP
Hi!
Even if the extension is compiled by default, we can (and probably
should) leave apc.enabled at Off, recognizing some the things you are
mentioning.
I'm not sure I see the point of compiling it if it's disabled. Anyway,
most of the distributions probably would make it .so just as it
The point is that it would be there for people to use, with as little
effort as possible, which would be changing 1 byte inside the INI
file. The issues APC is having with certain code is not specific to
APC, and does happen with other open source caches. Perhaps we need to
examine the validity of
Hi!
The point is that it would be there for people to use, with as little
effort as possible, which would be changing 1 byte inside the INI
file. The issues APC is having with certain code is not specific to
APC, and does happen with other open source caches. Perhaps we need to
We don't
Hi!
This is an unfixed PHP bug. There have been a number of threads about
the object destruction order on internals. It isn't just APC that is
affected by this. Other extensions are affected as well.
I understand that this effect is caused by the fact that APC destroys
PHP classes earlier
Stas,
If there is a better alternative to APC we can bundle with PHP, I am
definitely open to exploring that idea. However the alternatives I am
familiar either are closed source or have licences incompatible with
PHP, and that's without getting into the better argument.
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at
On Jun 20, 2010, at 11:21 AM, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
I for one think it is a really good idea, there is no compelling
reason not to include APC, I would even go as far as say we should
enable it by default.
+1
We'd need to get http://wiki.php.net/rfc/zendsignals committed before we even
On 6/20/10 7:55 PM, Scott MacVicar wrote:
On Jun 20, 2010, at 11:21 AM, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
I for one think it is a really good idea, there is no compelling
reason not to include APC, I would even go as far as say we should
enable it by default.
+1
We'd need to get
44 matches
Mail list logo
