Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:48922
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.160.42 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding
         :content-type:message-id:cc:x-mailer:from:subject:date:to;
        b=kD+tb9M4Js00rN0XzvqnUh1Aa/MOB9KXqQmeJd/3Iz12rHgdvmTvPDMyvNKpp3+fk5
         P+4W/aAGRYbynF++57vBDucbQ2HXAihsej+4uBr5cHT1oa2OC/Dr7sHqQnNgRyvIYfO/
         saSMNJI5uIiCRy9h6jPq4OEGeNdcUTL/5N6Ik=
References: <AANLkTilEfGgHHqTv1YZu4yU6nse0t29UB7nlrnUDUwIO@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinvW2YBikeuy-LY8a2SdAU_AE-R73JCdpXIXDJ8@mail.gmail.com> <4C1EA662.1010601@sugarcrm.com> <49B64FA1-1BAA-4C88-AC9D-09E75792F05C@seancoates.com> <4C1ED20E.8050805@sugarcrm.com> <AANLkTinh0Lpc4bcvrRNBPOWMPtIKHLJrs-5Oy7Ns6Wbr@mail.gmail.com> <4C1EDA4B.9070300@sugarcrm.com> <AANLkTiluQ2glN_LrkxqV_a6LjNt-C-759NJ2gnlCDPwk@mail.gmail.com> <4C1EDCFE.307@sugarcrm.com> <AANLkTiktymWFuUGujUFVjYs0ID0fREM9TNfX8QcjQYEv@mail.gmail.com> <20100621123212.GA67066@devsys.jaguNET.com> <4C1F6025.4070300@daylessday.org>
In-Reply-To: <4C1F6025.4070300@daylessday.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 8A293)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Message-ID: <19DE295C-4BCD-42A3-BFB0-322D7AA23110@gmail.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 08:33:12 -0700
To: Antony Dovgal <tony@daylessday.org>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] APC in trunk
From: mike503@gmail.com (Michael Shadle)

I would like to know why a third party can develop a better (or more agile?)=
  cache than the core php devs. I would think that if anyone can align it ni=
cely especially when writing the core code itself and could also think about=
 "this is a great place for apc to hook in" or something. It's obvious due t=
o the strong feelings that this is a controversial point due to how well oth=
er options work. As a user myself I have to ask "why can't there be one that=
 encompasses all the best of all of them"


On Jun 21, 2010, at 5:50 AM, Antony Dovgal <tony@daylessday.org> wrote:

> 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). =46rom 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.
>>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> We've been experiencing some troubles with APC + 5.3, too,=20
> 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.
>=20
> So we're still using APC + 5.3 in production, even though=20
> I get a core now and then (weird, last segfault was ~2 weeks ago..).
>=20
> --=20
> Wbr,
> Antony Dovgal
> ---
> http://pinba.org - realtime statistics for PHP
>=20
> --=20
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>=20