On 06/16/2003 07:20 AM, Zeev Suraski wrote:
I guess they can't compare with what they can't afford to buy.
It's therefore nice that it's available for free 21-day evaluation on zend.com, isn't it? :)
I suppose that was not available when they started making those benchmarks.
It was, like all Zend products, since the very day they became available (January 23rd, 2001).
I meant the features that you want to be included in the tests.
Anyway, you are complaining with the wrong person. I am not responsible for the Turck software nor the benchmarks they publish.
If you feel that do not make your products show the performance of features that were not eveluated, you should complaine to Turck people. No, wait, better, make your own benchmark comparisions and post them in your site. At least you will be able to do your marketing without bothering everybody that does not favour your products.
It makes sense comparing the performance the same features. They compare code caching + optimizing. Turck also does content caching. It is just not reflected in those charts because it is a recent feature.
It's a pointless discussion - the ZPS is a new name, and under this name, it always included content caching and compression features. By using this name (as opposed to explicitly specifying ZPS Accelerator Edition, or Zend Accelerator), the comparison was wrong. No biggy, but somewhat misleading.
Have you complained to Turcksoft people?
Personally I would find it more misleading if the benchmarks mixed the performance results of products with and without content caching which is different than code caching. So, the benchmarks presented by Turck are useful to me the way they are.
If you learned the product, you'd see that it offers many things that cannot be offered by mod_gzip nor any dynamic content caching class available in PHP (not to mention it's a heck of a lot easier to use).
I would not be that sure.
It would be odd if you were sure, considering you haven't learned this product...
Neither you seem to have learned about my cache class, which is the sense that I meant with my statement.
Anyway, since I am not interested in paying for ZPS I have not studied your products in depth to comment.
It would be nice and of minimal courtesy then, not to make statements that imply that you have a clear understanding of what you're talking about. It's not your obligation to study the product, obviously, but then, don't make comments about it that suggest that you know it.
Likewise. Read below.
So, I can't guess what you are implying with those "many things that cannot be offered by mod_gzip nor any dynamic content caching class".
Personally I can only comment on the caching class solution that I mentioned because I developed it to offload significantly one very busy site.
Of course, I wasn't trying to imply that your caching classes are useless, they're just much less powerful than what you can do with ZPS. The ZPS has caching facilities and allows complex dependencies that simply cannot be implemented in PHP's user space, no matter how bright a coder you may be. Most notably, its ability to work with alongside applications that make extensive use of sessions. In our experience, using caching classes proves to be either impossible or extremely difficult to implement in many of the slightly-more-than-trivial web sites. This is one of the places where the ZPS kicks in (in addition to better maintainability and overall performance). If you're doing well with userland caching classes, by all means, use them - it's a free world.
If I got you right, my class can already do what you mean. Sure it still has to run the script that loads the class and use it, but I can cache arbitrary data and have different caches for the same pages depending on information specific to the user session or user profile.
P.S.: You wouldn't have to go as far as mod_gzip for HTTP compression. PHP has built-in support for that, that I added a few version ago. The
Sure, but it would be dumb to serve static pages with PHP scripts just to serve them compressed when the browser supports them. If the pages are dynamic it may not make much difference, but why have two solutions to do the same when one can is more appropriate in certain conditions?
ZPS, however, has nice integration between the content caching module and compression, so you don't have to pay the price tag for compression, which is significant CPU overhead.
That can be done easily with my class. Personally I do not like to use solutions that are not fully aware of the context of my scripts, even less having to pay good money that you omit in your site, but I can understand that other people that are really richh would not mind using an external extension like yours.
--
Regards, Manuel Lemos
Free ready to use OOP components written in PHP http://www.phpclasses.org/
-- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
