Newsgroups: php.internals,php.qa Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:43053 php.qa:64668 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 25818 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2009 16:05:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 15 Feb 2009 16:05:51 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=pierre.php@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=pierre.php@gmail.com; sender-id=pass; domainkeys=bad Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 72.14.220.159 as permitted sender) DomainKey-Status: bad X-DomainKeys: Ecelerity dk_validate implementing draft-delany-domainkeys-base-01 X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: pierre.php@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 72.14.220.159 fg-out-1718.google.com Received: from [72.14.220.159] ([72.14.220.159:26897] helo=fg-out-1718.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 60/54-08422-E5D38994 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 11:05:50 -0500 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id e12so105782fga.23 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 08:05:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=apFvd51ms97+DI6ZU9DTdyEwkvMUqdxD61dwErYwaC0=; b=UTluIVw6p7uhzwg3gLhHYSmb0oefrWceEdpJ3PqwACMF0ESYsy2kkzaW6/cZU++IWg qIYRpomJLdq+5iKJf1SOyaYx/iV9sM3bsvYzuRXC5HEqCIJUqmX2R2jYC1zzaWUoewZu DtCKIAQ0ayNavRCCUSJriUUbBUrhUOTpELvW4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=gnXSelNgAsc07T4MqQ+OF/vaxAjn7EgrNUr3/nA789stNHxizR9OzlQpsh2DmCWkMd FAVC8IOldzzRADuSLZLjTwWTVumIFlzaZdp4dmYMF62iX0v115CKF90wpuxMLfIXnuPN lPNbDk1/pABKBaBzI53UVMKQx1pWsv1SA1kSM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.86.52.6 with SMTP id z6mr310793fgz.20.1234713947148; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 08:05:47 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <51A90DD7608A4D48AB9BDF0BB19F0355@PC3EE1F19287> Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 17:05:47 +0100 Message-ID: To: Sebastian Bergmann Cc: php-qa@lists.php.net, internals@lists.php.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-QA] Re: [RFC] Better benchmarks for PHP From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye) hi, On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Sebastian Bergmann wrote: > Nuno Lopes schrieb: >> Comments, criticisms and volunteers especially welcome, > > When you do this, think about splitting each benchmark into a separate > file and have it run by a separate PHP process, see [1]. To split them into separate files/cases is definitively a good thing. I'm not sure we should run them in parallel. As it makes sense for the phpt, it may have counter effects for benchmark tests. Concurrent executions of a given feature/extension could help (for apc and stat cache for example), but maybe not for every part of php, or not by default. Cheers, -- Pierre http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org