Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:17761 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 26305 invoked by uid 1010); 10 Aug 2005 00:48:04 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 26290 invoked from network); 10 Aug 2005 00:48:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 10 Aug 2005 00:48:04 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 80.137.31.7 p50891F07.dip0.t-ipconnect.de Received: from ([80.137.31.7:10295] helo=localhost.localdomain) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.0 beta r(6323M)) with SMTP id 19/C3-04646-2CE49F24 for ; Tue, 09 Aug 2005 20:48:02 -0400 To: internals@lists.php.net,steve roussey Message-ID: <42F94EBE.3010303@web.de> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 02:47:58 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716) X-Accept-Language: de-DE, de, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: internals@lists.php.net References: <57792e85050808205143e96a8f@mail.gmail.com> <42F907A0.8070900@web.de> <57792e85050809142416ee5d6c@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <57792e85050809142416ee5d6c@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Posted-By: 80.137.31.7 Subject: Re: Moving to PHP5.1 and Apache 2.2 next year, need help From: akorthaus@web.de (Andreas Korthaus) steve roussey wrote: > Someone else emailed me about using FastCGI with Apache 2.1/event but > I just figured that there would be a significant slowdown using > FastCGI rather than a module/handler. (Currently I compile PHP into > Apache statically and turn off Apache's dynamic module loading ability > -- something I couldn't figure out in Apache2). What is your > experience with FastCGI? There are some different benchmarks with lighttpd+php: http://trac.lighttpd.net/trac/wiki/ But I only trust my own benchmarks, and here I couldn't measure a really big difference, lighttpd + fastcgi seems to be slightly faster than Apache 1.3 + mod_php with my setup. But I think it depends on your application and setup. A big difference I noticed was used cpu, memory and load - lighttpd was by far more efficient here. If you're benchmarking lighttpd you should have a look at the following chapter from documentation: http://lighttpd.net/documentation/performance.html > Still, I looked at lighttpd and it looks promising. The one thing that > started all of this was Apache 2.1's event MPM that used a single > thread to handle all open Keep-Alives looked very efficient. lighttpd does the same, it's a non-blocking webserver with only one process. The one process cares about keep-alives... and delegates handling of PHP-Requests to a number of loadbalanced, persistent PHP Processes using FastCGI. Andreas