Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65336
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.217.181 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: laruence@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CABBJUpctsVUdNPjYANDwpAbGcokxydt1nx4sd8gQnVG4Sqx8gg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d0d4398d8ad51ffa330d9d960bcd91a5@mail.gmail.com> <CABBJUpctsVUdNPjYANDwpAbGcokxydt1nx4sd8gQnVG4Sqx8gg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 17:31:43 +0800
Message-ID: <CABBJUpfyDBrTMvEX-ndsAKE7o2a8-Sakg57EQ7v+bDbNFwGdWw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] ZTS - why are you using it?
From: laruence@php.net (Laruence)

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Laruence <laruence@php.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
>> I didn=E2=80=99t want to hijack the Optimizer+ thread so I=E2=80=99m cre=
ating a new one,
>> based on the apparent level of interest in ZTS.  This isn=E2=80=99t an R=
FC to
>> remove ZTS by any stretch, but I **am** a bit confused about why people =
are
>> still using ZTS.
>>
>>
>>
>> A bit of background.  I started the ZTS project (based on initial work b=
y
>> Shane Caraveo more than a decade ago), and invested countless hours in
>> pushing it all throughout PHP.  So I really hold absolutely no grudge
>> against it, quite the contrary=E2=80=A6  However, many years ago, I came=
 to the
>> conclusion that it was a bit of a lost cause trying to weed out all the
>> thread safety issues from everywhere =E2=80=93 and that a simpler, more =
elegant
>> solution exists in the form of FastCGI.
>>
>>
>>
>> Which brings me to the subject of this mail =E2=80=93 why are you using =
ZTS PHP
>> instead of single threaded PHP?  The reasons not to use it are few but
>> fairly major =E2=80=93 it=E2=80=99s significantly slower than the non-ZT=
S PHP, and it=E2=80=99s
>> significantly less robust in the sense that a single bug somewhere can
>> bring down an entire server (or at least a bunch of many different
>> threads).  What are your reasons to choose it over FastCGI?
>
> Hey:
>
> It's not we choose ZTS, it is there are many users run with them (IIS,
> Apache+workers, and pthreads extension require it)
>
> and all PHP extensions supports it, so if O+ doesn't, it feel a little
> inconsistent.

And,  if O+ aims only to be a PECL extension,  I think it's okey.

but if it is going to PHP src, I think the consistent should be
considered, agree?

thanks

>
> thanks
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Zeev
>
>
>
> --
> Laruence  Xinchen Hui
> http://www.laruence.com/



--=20
Laruence  Xinchen Hui
http://www.laruence.com/