On Mon, December 4, 2006 4:53 am, Tony Marston wrote: > No, otherwise I would have quoted them. Generally speaking when people > say > that "X is inefficient or bad for performance" all they can prove is > that if > something extra is done then it takes extra processing time to perform > that > extra work, and they usually quote from an out-of-date source. While > the > time taken for Apace to process an htaccess file may have been > significant > on a 1Mhz processor it is barely noticeable on a 3Ghz processor. > > If the time taken to process an htaccess file on one of today's > processors > adds 0.000001 seconds to a page's load time, would that be regarded as > "significant"? Would this be a small price to pay for the advantage of > being > able to change Apache's configuration with an htaccess file?
The time to process the .htaccess file is chump-change. The time to do the fstat calls and disk seeks on EVERY PAGE HIT in each sub-directory to find and load any .htaccess files that MIGHT be there, and MIGHT have changed is not chump-change, almost for sure, to this day. Disk I/O is still relatively expensive. Feel free to find or create some benchmarks if you wish to disprove this oft-quoted "myth". -- Some people have a "gift" link here. Know what I want? I want you to buy a CD from some starving artist. http://cdbaby.com/browse/from/lynch Yeah, I get a buck. So? -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
