Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:51033
Return-Path: <jond3k@gmail.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 6871 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2010 11:58:59 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 15 Dec 2010 11:58:59 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=jond3k@gmail.com; sender-id=pass; domainkeys=bad
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=jond3k@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.160.170 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
X-DomainKeys: Ecelerity dk_validate implementing draft-delany-domainkeys-base-01
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: jond3k@gmail.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.160.170 mail-gy0-f170.google.com  
Received: from [209.85.160.170] ([209.85.160.170:60868] helo=mail-gy0-f170.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 43/00-06741-28DA80D4 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 06:58:58 -0500
Received: by gyf2 with SMTP id 2so1008710gyf.29
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 03:58:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to
         :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
        bh=ftEkyds/y+tnkabuKgY3yDwCb9svcWB72jED/KdGGz8=;
        b=eykMR3TVg6fVx3TS5kN+xf+aAuRWbafSMLMdCRX8dWXcIkuibcOINbSp/5p004vHU+
         4EnLJDTw8EZPSFyD9gFdlA64Bv6/nNc3m+GjnuvZ8XevwGJ+3WIuRehjHFHmm+TAPckY
         7bhNpjOovkfuUqelcJUAYPg+8Cv3XJNXn9iI0=
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;
        b=aSoGDxVVnhHG6Ete3CAxO8p2sgQDUgMg3SyN63fSmbh1eSOVERzySpZP9cvxlvWYE6
         v4hoOI7mpbOZM4IeCxJn8qwE+YRhlxC70vk7MfsUcl6qBuD8mqLZZIRJcNlY9RaesN5j
         O/ZrwlpDlfaeVchM/wW1yP57JQsqETAizba/U=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.101.136.29 with SMTP id o29mr4402114ann.58.1292414335898; Wed,
 15 Dec 2010 03:58:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.100.174.1 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 03:58:55 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=na8wFkgtXZRvCwv3yZO+G7YSJGe8yxtqcSkZX@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=ixWQkKovKYuLuQckDvkLQY2nYEyG6PJfZAn-G@mail.gmail.com>
	<C7.89.59442.304C70D4@pb1.pair.com>
	<AANLkTi=na8wFkgtXZRvCwv3yZO+G7YSJGe8yxtqcSkZX@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 11:58:55 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=6+DQVrrG3bd_EkC3teYfNBBSa03J+hwHcBtCJ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julien Pauli <jpauli@php.net>
Cc: jvlad <dmda@yandex.ru>, internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: PHP Performance in Apache: Multi-Process vs Multi-Threaded
From: jond3k@gmail.com (Jon Davey)

2010/12/15 Julien Pauli <jpauli@php.net>
>
> Well, I would say that if your problem is memory, you should consider
> threads as they all share the same memory space in their process.
>
> Apache's children can weight very heavy if PHP's been compiled to
> support lots of extensions, you can happen with ~40/50Mb per process
> which is very huge. Considerating 50 parallel processes eat up 2-3Gb
> for example.
>

Surely creating a fork of a 50MB process will not consume an
additional 50MB because of copy-on-write virtual memory? I would think
you would only see this growth in memory usage if the extensions
maintained a large payload of data that was being heavily modified in
each request, such as caches, but I expect they create their own
shared memory segments (I have yet to check the source of APC).

Jon