Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74079 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 60336 invoked from network); 9 May 2014 06:32:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 9 May 2014 06:32:29 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=bof@bof.de; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=bof@bof.de; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain bof.de designates 80.242.145.70 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: bof@bof.de X-Host-Fingerprint: 80.242.145.70 mars.intermailgate.com Received: from [80.242.145.70] ([80.242.145.70:45218] helo=mars.intermailgate.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id BF/4C-15882-C767C635 for ; Fri, 09 May 2014 02:32:28 -0400 Received: (qmail 19153 invoked by uid 1009); 9 May 2014 08:32:25 +0200 Received: from 209.85.192.44 by mars (envelope-from , uid 89) with qmail-scanner-1.25-st-qms (clamdscan: 0.96.2/18949. spamassassin: 3.3.1. perlscan: 1.25-st-qms. Clear:RC:1(209.85.192.44):. Processed in 0.05814 secs); 09 May 2014 06:32:25 -0000 X-Antivirus-MYDOMAIN-Mail-From: bof@bof.de via mars X-Antivirus-MYDOMAIN: 1.25-st-qms (Clear:RC:1(209.85.192.44):. Processed in 0.05814 secs Process 19134) Received: from mail-qg0-f44.google.com (gmail@bof.de@209.85.192.44) by mars.intermailgate.com with RC4-SHA encrypted SMTP; 9 May 2014 08:32:25 +0200 Received: by mail-qg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id i50so3964951qgf.17 for ; Thu, 08 May 2014 23:32:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.37.9 with SMTP id q9mr10978506qgq.57.1399617144528; Thu, 08 May 2014 23:32:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.33.230 with HTTP; Thu, 8 May 2014 23:32:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.33.230 with HTTP; Thu, 8 May 2014 23:32:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2c470224f5eca827363a3c5878bc709d@mail.gmail.com> References: <5369CED9.5010001@php.net> <4339111475046055305@unknownmsgid> <578A5A21-A820-42AD-A218-FB8049F63B82@zend.com> <3A72C770-9A9F-40C9-9DFE-F40478709BA8@ajf.me> <311084565853739035@unknownmsgid> <536BA9FE.1090408@lerdorf.com> <2c470224f5eca827363a3c5878bc709d@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 08:32:24 +0200 Message-ID: To: Zeev Suraski Cc: Rasmus Lerdorf , internals , Sebastian Bergmann , Andi Gutmans , Andrea Faulds Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1358ab8c46604f8f1c234 Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] phpng: Refactored PHP Engine with Big Performance Improvement From: bof@bof.de (Patrick Schaaf) --001a11c1358ab8c46604f8f1c234 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Am 08.05.2014 23:25 schrieb "Zeev Suraski" : > > 2. I never argued that FastCGI/fpm is faster than mod_php; It's probably > not (it's roughly as quick from my experience). But it's *a lot* more > scalable (in terms of in-machine scalability), since it breaks the 1:1 > mapping between Apache processes and PHP processes. Often, for a typical > setup of with hundreds of Apache children, you could use just several dozen > PHP processes when using FastCGI. Is that really the usual case? For me it's about 90% PHP requests, and the remaining CSS/JS/Image requests wont be sped up a bit by being served through a smaller apache process, because they are already fast anyway. Going FPM would thus mean about double the numberr of processes, and double the number of context switches. best regards Patrick --001a11c1358ab8c46604f8f1c234--