Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65451 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 82769 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2013 00:05:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 30 Jan 2013 00:05:37 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.173 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.173 smtp173.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.173] ([67.192.241.173:50970] helo=smtp173.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id C5/03-10721-FC368015 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 19:05:35 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp7.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id A141A258739; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 19:05:32 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp7.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 9DAD52581B3; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 19:05:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <510863CB.7010404@sugarcrm.com> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:05:31 -0800 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9oYW5uZXMgU2NobMO8dGVy?= CC: Pierre Joye , Zeev Suraski , PHP internals References: <1359459921.3916.105.camel@guybrush> In-Reply-To: <1359459921.3916.105.camel@guybrush> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] ZTS - why are you using it? From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > Of course an opcode cache isn't shred-nothing either, and maybe sharing > opcodes within a process is faster than doing this in shared memory. I don't think so. IIRC main time is spent of two things: building runtime structures from storage formats (because we mess with our structures in runtime, we can not run engine on shm copies of everything) and ensuring writing new scripts does not mess with existing ones. These will have to be done regardless of how shared storage is organized. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227