Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:25055
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
To: <bertrand@toggg.com>,
	<internals@lists.php.net>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 12:42:22 -0700
Message-ID: <004c01c6b347$1ddcfe30$6600a8c0@zend.2k>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Index: AcazOUpwMqJ7Df2rT9GKp0NGHqR19gADbqLg
In-Reply-To: <44CBA433.3030609@toggg.com>
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] does 16M give a counting overhead ?
From: andi@zend.com ("Andi Gutmans")
References: <44CBA433.3030609@toggg.com>

Hi Bertrand,

The discussion is on how and what we count, not on whether to count or not.
If you count in 256KB increments instead of in byte increments then there's
less counting to do in order to get to 16MB :)
Andi 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: bertrand Gugger [mailto:bertrand@toggg.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 11:09 AM
> To: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: [PHP-DEV] does 16M give a counting overhead ?
> 
> Bonsoir,
> I sure bore the list , but I still miss something.
> There was that thread about "memory_get_usage with new Memory 
> Manager" 
> where Ilia (et al.) evocated the overhead induced by the
> memory_get_usage() and family functions.
> as , e.g. , in 
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=php-dev&m=115400370218834
> 
> So I just ask if and how it is possible to get 16M without 
> the counting overhead.
> --
> toggg
> 
> > Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> > 
> >>
> >> On 27-Jul-06, at 9:03 AM, bertrand Gugger wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> That may hear off topic , but how you enable something 
> else than 8M  *without* getting this counting overhead ?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Eh? When you set a limit what are you trying to do? From 
> my  experience most of the time this setting is used by 
> hosting providers  to restrict memory utilization of various 
> PHP scripts to avoid out-of- memory situations and system abuse.
> > 
> > The most cases I saw were providers or production site 
> wanting to grant *more* than 8M (typically 16M) to their 
> customers / users.
> > I dont call that a "restriction".
> > You should know this 8M limit is reached very easily.
> > e.g. lot of popular CMS wont work below this limit as soon 
> as they have a litle contents.
> > 
> >> As such you'd want as accurate  measurement as possible 
> including any overhead and what not, since it  is possible to 
> use the overhead to exceed or in some cases even to  bypass 
> the memory limit entirely.
> > 
> > You miss the point , they don't care about accuracy, they 
> just don't 
> > want the default 8M but more.
> > 
> >>
> >>> It looks to me that --enable-memory-limit mixes 2 
> independant roles :
> >>> - setting the amount of available memory, and enabling 
> eventually  
> >>> local setting,
> >>> - enabling the evaluation of the process consumption.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> That is correct. Memory limit by its nature requires PHP 
> to count the  amount of memory consumed, since such tracking 
> is performed it  enabled PHP to report internally via 
> functions (or via Apache log)  about its memory utilization.
> > 
> > I have no idea how it works internally ...
> > Are you meaning the default "hard-coded" 8M limit is magic 
> and will not need to count the amount of memory consumed but 
> any custom setting will ?
> > --
> > toggg
> 
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To 
> unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>