Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74081 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 63860 invoked from network); 9 May 2014 06:52:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 9 May 2014 06:52:26 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=zeev@zend.com; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=zeev@zend.com; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com from 209.85.220.178 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: zeev@zend.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.220.178 mail-vc0-f178.google.com Received: from [209.85.220.178] ([209.85.220.178:64863] helo=mail-vc0-f178.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 38/0D-15882-92B7C635 for ; Fri, 09 May 2014 02:52:26 -0400 Received: by mail-vc0-f178.google.com with SMTP id hq16so1869133vcb.9 for ; Thu, 08 May 2014 23:52:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :thread-index:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=EXhNTRZvMqK/dTnaxJYHoCdH1hEoT7gw+DWACAT1xQ0=; b=B8dDmIVxc1FlSBxJufCV7KoTgCGIno+ZWmvZsMgY7hzPzGa+1MHZFnakfBaXyoqrJi LTqGsdy8Z8FixPaZmrP9iCuYQ9Ijeqnr7dfinMGl2N/CJcMc42gvD8DttOIrm9MIFWdu oG8cbrbic0XGeyCwMpG6NLcXAYnyviXygc8nCtYN1Bo+rUcxFtgMlAdE80D07hCWhB5g JGUDw+DxamdIx5xVT3Tv8oEI/kNvzJzijz3TAkCA2TIbsoiAgPocILHJvexfrsvob1xN sSacYkzwvrhnT9y8ruhXWWN48YSF01uzipa1Nc0bhzyZTcfskKH+rOSeLDszNsT48Jcg U+CQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlkziTN4MbYA30q5F6UkAW2LTz4vl4N6saQWeYm8V7QscxtcUSs9f1L2j2czJLjqkXcFKhWMmZAE0JEfx0CXVkn67P0a6TelJq7bRcpQyXWs6v1apxLmR/t44NB4vjEZl7giFyh X-Received: by 10.58.120.46 with SMTP id kz14mr6862063veb.25.1399618342482; Thu, 08 May 2014 23:52:22 -0700 (PDT) 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> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQEftMwaGDy2m3QH84O/axsSuTXZAQJQjPokAQyBFxwCma+kwwKeu99vAh3SXOoB6WgWogIOSIbSAs+YOHkBMJHCNgGXweLTAfgxM5cC0Di9nQEl2WIhm8WyVDA= Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 09:52:17 +0300 Message-ID: To: Patrick Schaaf Cc: Rasmus Lerdorf , internals , Sebastian Bergmann , Andi Gutmans , Andrea Faulds Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] phpng: Refactored PHP Engine with Big Performance Improvement From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski) >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. I think it's a very common case, yes. Let me ask you a question - what is your MaxClients set to? If it's over a hundred (or even over 50), chances are you're not using your server's memory as efficiently as you could with FastCGI/fpm. >Going FPM would thus mean about double the numberr of processes, and double >the number of context switches. Not really, as Apache could be down to a single process and consume a lot less memory. Regarding context switches - I agree with Dmitry's principle that it's real life tests that are the only thing that matters, and real world tests prove that FastCGI is as fast and typically marginally faster than mod_php (before we take into account the memory savings benefits) Zeev