Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:98950
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain rhsoft.net designates 91.118.73.15 as permitted sender)
To: Mailing-List php <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <79ca3537-b439-583a-6162-05da302711f2@rhsoft.net>
 <fd36c432-e8e8-0329-76a4-10ddb3779676@rhsoft.net>
 <CAF+90c9WYFfigGkKuJDev-OpB72qQsg2Gyx6h01mccCSYS5OGQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <debe5aa7-a635-b2fd-5e3f-e313c60b1a0a@rhsoft.net>
 <CAF+90c8aMfiV_CUEQk4Fa+xAOrUsqef42rvWcsgAY=AvHCxHMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <c10e16bc-5fbb-9ccb-7454-9b72ebc68740@rhsoft.net>
 <CAF+90c8EBitjmQH3u5yXQJ-VERKGvzCjHUR_d-Em-6u21TdjJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <403881ad-ec0c-395f-279e-6b345ee7cb39@rhsoft.net>
 <CAESVnVqwPXVpr_dvx-Qk-ZmYS9o_UaoJcyt0Q-ZvY6BnFk+mkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <af7474ea-0dd5-098e-8cd5-f08e4680cf91@rhsoft.net>
Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 05:19:07 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAESVnVqwPXVpr_dvx-Qk-ZmYS9o_UaoJcyt0Q-ZvY6BnFk+mkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: de-CH
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] the experimental jit-branch is impressive
From: lists@rhsoft.net ("lists@rhsoft.net")



Am 03.05.2017 um 02:37 schrieb Sara Golemon:
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 2:51 PM, lists@rhsoft.net <lists@rhsoft.net> wrote:
>> OK, than it are "only" 5% on a highly optimized codebase
>>
> Awww... that makes me kinda sad to hear.  But perhaps with more work
> that needle can be moved upwards.
> 
> One question which I didn't see answered (in my admittedly quick
> scan): What codebase are you testing against?  Wordpress stock
> install?

100% internal codebase without 3rd party libraries developed over the 
last 15 years and in the meantime 100% 
strict-types/typehints/return-types only missing some commented 
nullable/void return types because i need to wait with 7.1.x for another 
busy guy with some of his instances :-)

the profiling system is our internal demo-system with every depolyable 
module installed, runs the auto-testsuite inclduing refelection fuzzy-calls

* override config and switch to a clean database
* create 86 tables running the installer
* 60 unit tests (heavy sound on a RAID10 HDD system)
* 1200 reflection-fuzzy calls with random params to methdos
* calling every backend url with a configured admin user
* spider over 1600 frontend urls (curl, dom)
* controlled by a bash/php mix running also the intermediate CLI

that beast is highly optimized and the core-cms with just 4 navigation 
points and some lines of text has 12 function calls above 1% in xdebug :-)

well, the demo-install for profiling has magnitudes more running code

so 5% is not that bad - PHP 5.6 to 7.0 brought only 45% on that codebase 
while in the meantime the performance of the code got doubled at it's 
own (thanks xdebug) - hence someone heard my cry "WTF unbelievebale " 
after the first run not realize that the loaded xdebug without JIT makes 
most of the factor 2.5 difference while my epectation was 5-10% if any 
measureable improvement at all

http://corecms.thelounge.net/show_content.php?sid=2
0.0027 / 0.0013 - cuurently running on 7.0.18

0.0027: Header always set "X-Response-Time"        "%D us"
0.0013: microtime(true) first line versus microtime(true) final
__________________________________

3500 requests/second with 7.2-JIT on a 4-core i7 versus 4500/second with 
7.8.18 on a 12-core Xeon tells me that PHP itself is only some part of 
the runtime of the ab-benchmark given that "ab" on my testmachine eats 
nearly one of the 4 cores at it's own and even under 100% load generate 
times in the browser stays below 0.01 seconds
__________________________________

250 sequentiell curl requests parsing the "X-Response-Time" average with 
identical content

DYNAMIC CMS: 2382 us
STATIC HTM:  242 us
STATIC PHP:  288 us