Newsgroups: php.general,php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.general:294750 php.internals:44553 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 55334 invoked from network); 30 Jun 2009 15:47:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 30 Jun 2009 15:47:21 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=evert@filemobile.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=evert@filemobile.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain filemobile.com designates 69.90.17.162 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: evert@filemobile.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 69.90.17.162 external.filemobile.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [69.90.17.162] ([69.90.17.162:62273] helo=mail.filemobile.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id BB/85-52911-8833A4A4 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:47:21 -0400 Received: from evertbook2.to-office (mowat-gw.filemobile.com [76.66.227.130]) by mail.filemobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E72EC2755B; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:47:17 -0400 (EDT) Cc: php-general@lists.php.net Message-ID: <170B26C7-99C4-44FA-83C6-58C7CC601245@filemobile.com> To: PHP Internals List In-Reply-To: <698DE66518E7CA45812BD18E807866CE01F3674D@us-ex1.zend.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:47:17 -0400 References: <57792e850809031556x24615eb8kf0eca3210be2cb6f@mail.gmail.com> <698DE66518E7CA45812BD18E807866CE01F3674D@us-ex1.zend.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP] PHP 5.3.0alpha2 From: evert@filemobile.com (Evert | Filemobile) On 4-Sep-08, at 12:06 AM, Andi Gutmans wrote: > Btw, contrary to what many believe, 32bit PHP tends to perform better > than 64bit PHP. > So unless there's a really good reason why you want 64bit I wouldn't > waste too much time on that. I have heard this before, but CPU hasn't really been our bottleneck on our webservers, rather than memory. Am I doing it wrong, or is that a 'really good reason' ?