Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:48890 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 11485 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2010 06:29:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 21 Jun 2010 06:29:22 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=scott@macvicar.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=scott@macvicar.net; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain macvicar.net from 97.107.131.220 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: scott@macvicar.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 97.107.131.220 whisky.macvicar.net Linux 2.6 Received: from [97.107.131.220] ([97.107.131.220:52134] helo=whisky.macvicar.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 67/01-04713-1C60F1C4 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 02:29:21 -0400 Received: from [172.16.1.3] (76-217-210-0.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.217.210.0]) by whisky.macvicar.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9AF446A51; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 02:29:18 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <4C1EF360.3060902@lerdorf.com> Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 23:29:16 -0700 Cc: internals Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: References: <1736FE65-C0F0-4677-919D-410C81C0FD47@macvicar.net> <4C1EF360.3060902@lerdorf.com> To: Rasmus Lerdorf X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] APC in trunk From: scott@macvicar.net (Scott MacVicar) On Jun 20, 2010, at 10:06 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > On 6/20/10 7:55 PM, Scott MacVicar wrote: >>=20 >> On Jun 20, 2010, at 11:21 AM, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: >>=20 >>> 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. >>>=20 >>> +1 >>=20 >> We'd need to get http://wiki.php.net/rfc/zendsignals committed before = we even get it in the core. >>=20 >> At the moment if the script gets killed while the cache was being = cleaned it up it never unlocks it and your server is essentially dead. >=20 > Depends on the locking mechanism. As long as you have owner-death > protection in your lock, you are fine for this particular problem. >=20 shire's patch was fine, I think the only thing missing from it was = Windows support though tbh its no worse than what is there before. - S=