Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:71585 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 53294 invoked from network); 26 Jan 2014 10:54:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 26 Jan 2014 10:54:52 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ab@php.net; spf=unknown; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ab@php.net; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: unknown (pb1.pair.com: domain php.net does not designate 85.214.73.107 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ab@php.net X-Host-Fingerprint: 85.214.73.107 klapt.com Received: from [85.214.73.107] ([85.214.73.107:39844] helo=klapt.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id F7/10-50767-779E4E25 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 05:54:51 -0500 Received: by klapt.com (Postfix, from userid 33) id 1B29523D610A; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 11:54:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from 88.67.238.221 (SquirrelMail authenticated user anatol@belski.net) by webmail.klapt.com with HTTP; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 11:54:43 +0100 Message-ID: <495825bae91351018d6142f4e0062d9a.squirrel@webmail.klapt.com> In-Reply-To: References: <52E0F55F.4040802@lsces.co.uk> <52E16AC2.8070400@ajf.me> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 11:54:43 +0100 To: "Anatol Belski" Cc: "Dmitry Stogov" , "Pierre Joye" , "Andrea Faulds" , "Derick Rethans" , "PHP Internals" Reply-To: "Anatol Belski" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.5.2 [SVN] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] 64 bit platform improvements for string length and integer From: ab@php.net ("Anatol Belski") Hi Dmitry, On Fri, January 24, 2014 09:36, Anatol Belski wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > > On Fri, January 24, 2014 08:32, Dmitry Stogov wrote: > >> Unfortunately, my benchmarks on Linux show that 64-bit PHP builds are >> always a bit slower on real-life applications. It's because 64-bit PHP >> uses more memory and as result causes more CPU cache misses. >> > i suppose the perf test on windows to be done today. > here's the perf test result I got from Steve. All the numbers are test scores, the meaning is the same as one could already have seen in the other perf tests of this art http://windows.php.net/downloads/snaps/ostc/pftt/perf/ . Below are also the Steve's notes about what he's seen during tesing. Regards, Anatol ============= FORWARDED ============= PHP Version Wordpress Drupal Joomla str_size_and_int64-x86 NoCache: 68 NoCache: 70 NoCache: 53 Cache: 284 Cache: 393 Cache: 127 php-5.5.8-nts-Win32-VC11-x86 NoCache: 67 NoCache: 69 NoCache: 53 Cache: 280 Cache: 390 Cache: 125 str_size_and_int64-x64 NoCache: 58 NoCache: 64 NoCache: 50 Cache: 313* Cache: 348* Cache: 100* php-5.5.8-nts-Win32-VC11-x64 NoCache: 59 NoCache: 65 NoCache: 51 Cache: 270* Cache: ** Cache: ** • The x86 build of the str_size_and_int64 is consistent with the x86 build of 5.5.8. • The x64 build of the str_size_and_int64 branch was a bit slower than the x86 build of any version, as expected. • * I had some issues with the x64 versions of 5.5.8 and str_size_and_int64 when testing with opcache enabled. Typically the scripts will test each application three times with 16/32/64 virtual clients. For the str_size_and_int64 build I could get 1 or 2 out of the three runs to produce good results, and then the other runs would just return 500 errors. • The opcache results I could get from the x64 build of str_size_and_int64 were pretty good, and I even saw better perf with Wordpress for some reason. • The 5.5.8 x64 build was even worse. With the opcache scenario, I was not able to get decent results for Drupal and Joomla after several attempts. The results look promising and overall very consistent with standard PHP. However, it’s clear we need to resolve these issues with Opcache and the x64 builds on Windows before 5.6.0-final. Otherwise x64 builds on Windows will be a non-starter for production use. ============= END FORWARDED =============