On 11/16/2015 03:13 PM, Jefferson Gonzalez wrote: > On 11/14/2015 08:03 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: >> Beyond that I can't picture what possible use this could be. > > I also think that the ability to have a .phpc and .php side by side > would be nice, but not for hiding the source code. It would be useful > especially for php-cgi and secondary for php-cli. In php-cgi case theres > people who still host multiple sites on a single server and use the > php-cgi method because it doesn't requires to have an always running > instance like with php-fpm. > > Lets say you are hosting 100 sites on a single server, imho it would be > less resourceful to run php-cgi processes on demand than having more > than 100 fpm processes idling for requests. So in this scenario, having > the flexibility to load byte code for php-cgi process would be a nice > performance boost.
But that is exactly what the file-based opcache does by itself. The only speedup you achieve by trying to distribute the .bin files would be a minor boost the first time a cli script is executed. All subsequent runs of the script would hit the cache. The added complexity and potential version conflicts of trying to distribute the .bin files doesn't seem like it would be worth the trouble for such a minor one-time performance benefit. -Rasmus
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
