Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:48919 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 99730 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2010 12:51:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 21 Jun 2010 12:51:00 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=tony@daylessday.org; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=tony@daylessday.org; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain daylessday.org designates 89.208.40.236 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: tony@daylessday.org X-Host-Fingerprint: 89.208.40.236 mail.daylessday.org Linux 2.6 Received: from [89.208.40.236] ([89.208.40.236:35266] helo=daylessday.org) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 0E/90-04713-2306F1C4 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 08:50:58 -0400 Received: from think.site (unknown [212.42.62.198]) by daylessday.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 29D10BFA0A2 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 16:50:52 +0400 (MSD) Message-ID: <4C1F6025.4070300@daylessday.org> Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 16:50:45 +0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 SUSE/3.0.4 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: internals@lists.php.net References: <4C1EA662.1010601@sugarcrm.com> <49B64FA1-1BAA-4C88-AC9D-09E75792F05C@seancoates.com> <4C1ED20E.8050805@sugarcrm.com> <4C1EDA4B.9070300@sugarcrm.com> <4C1EDCFE.307@sugarcrm.com> <20100621123212.GA67066@devsys.jaguNET.com> In-Reply-To: <20100621123212.GA67066@devsys.jaguNET.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] APC in trunk From: tony@daylessday.org (Antony Dovgal) On 06/21/2010 04:32 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > As a PHP user, when moving to PHP 5.3, from 5.2 I had the question > regarding which accel to use (I had been using APC). From most > of what I read, APC was not compatible and looking at the APC site, > the last 'stable' release was ~2years ago with a bunch of betas. I > then looked at XCache and saw that it was "more maintained" as well > as explicitly mentioned PHP 5.3 compatibility. > > In other words, to the unwashed masses, XCache, for example, > seemed a "better" and "safer" choice than APC, despite the > list of names attached to the latter. We've been experiencing some troubles with APC + 5.3, too, so I tried switching to XCache and my experience is described here: http://xcache.lighttpd.net/ticket/240 Judging by XCache SVN, there were no changes since then. So we're still using APC + 5.3 in production, even though I get a core now and then (weird, last segfault was ~2 weeks ago..). -- Wbr, Antony Dovgal --- http://pinba.org - realtime statistics for PHP