On 08/02/15 23:25, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > >> Are you saying performance is not the reason we use persistent handles? > > It is, for databases where connection setup is expensive. Even then > persistent handles are not always the best solution. But with DB, you > routinely connect to one service, with one set of credentials, and need > this connection constantly. With HTTP, it is rarely the case that you > want to maintain the connection to the same service for an extended time > (like hours or even days).
The server dictates this ony you anyway. It's only leveraging Keep-Alive and it is the server that's ultimately deciding whether it allows a connection to stay open for a limited amount of time. > >> Stas, I really don't understand what's the issue here for you. > > The issue is that I think maintaining long-time persistent HTTP > connections (I do not mean keepalive connection that serves a number of > requests within the context of one workload, like browser does) is not a > good idea, in fact it looks suspiciously like a DOS since many HTTP > servers, including Apache, are not equipped properly to handle such > model. While there may be corner cases where it may be useful, > encouraging the practice looks like a mistake to me. There won't be any forced-open connections. Connections won't be cached if the server doesn't support or allow Keep-Alive. Utilizing Keep-Alive is not encouraged per-se, it's just an offer, because it is not enabled by default. -- Regards, Mike -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
