Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:55893 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 80479 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2011 23:26:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 21 Oct 2011 23:26:32 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=wrowe@rowe-clan.net; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=wrowe@rowe-clan.net; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain rowe-clan.net from 64.202.165.181 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: wrowe@rowe-clan.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 64.202.165.181 smtpauth01.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net Linux 2.4/2.6 Received: from [64.202.165.181] ([64.202.165.181:53761] helo=smtpauth01.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 07/42-65244-6AFF1AE4 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 19:26:31 -0400 Received: (qmail 31257 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2011 23:26:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (76.252.112.72) by smtpauth01.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.181) with ESMTP; 21 Oct 2011 23:26:27 -0000 Message-ID: <4EA1FFA1.8080505@rowe-clan.net> Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 18:26:25 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: internals@lists.php.net References: <4E9EA80F.8030607@lsces.co.uk> <4E9FD2C2.7070707@lsces.co.uk> <4EA150BC.7030107@lsces.co.uk> <4EA1A77E.9040009@sugarcrm.com> <4EA1B23D.90904@lsces.co.uk> <4EA1E753.3020500@lsces.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <4EA1E753.3020500@lsces.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Benchmarking ... From: wrowe@rowe-clan.net ("William A. Rowe Jr.") On 10/21/2011 4:42 PM, Lester Caine wrote: > Stephen Zarkos wrote: >> Yes, I do:) Although the tests we've done are a bit different from this sort of >> benchmark. We typically do more load testing, where we have one or more load agent(s) >> each creating multiple virtual clients accessing one or more PHP pages on another >> physical server. > > I'm trying to factualize this and come up with a benchmark that I can rely on to check > performance. The initial claim was that there was no advantage using 64bit builds, but > I've re-run everything on the Vista box, and this is giving me 70 seconds on the x86 > Apache/PHP but 60 seconds with the x64 build. This is confirming what I thought myself, > and I would expect around 40 seconds on a 64 bit linux on the same hardware. I will try a > live CD just to confirm that. > > This would suggest that something else is going on with the Windows7 setup for it to be 4 > times slower? 4x sounds excessive, but in fact TS code is a significant performance penalty for windows, the only place where thread safety is "supported". I'd challenge you to do a non-TS build on windows and set up an fcgid pool of php workers and compare -that- to linux. I'd expect very nearly identical performance, once you factor out kernel-specific differences in the link-loader/resolver. Those are likely two very different beasts.