On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:22 PM, <c...@l-i-e.com> wrote: > > The slowdown of just running raw HTML through PHP was once benchmarked as > about 5 to 10 %. > > You could, in theory, use .htaccess and <Files> to ForceType specific .html > files as PHP, while leaving the rest of your .html files as static. > > I am not recommending this, just being pedantic. :-) > > Definitely better to either do them all and take performance hit, which is > probably irrelevant to a beginner, or plan better now and strip .xyz from the > URLs. > > ymmv. > > Personally, I've been quite happy for over a decade running all .html through > PHP, on 99% of the sites I work on. > > If it's big enough to *need* static content, they usually have already gone > the route of CDN and have static HTML off on those nodes anyway, in my > limited experience.
I was just talking myself. I use objects and such so I'm really not as worried about performance either. But it was a "downside" that I knew about from some css/js stuff I'd done a while ago. I still had 2 files on my box from some framework stuff I'd been messing with. Here were some results from my local testing (from the Yii framework). -- index.html -- $ cat index.html hello world $ ab -t 30 -c 50 http://localhost/benchmarks/baseline/index.html Requests per second: 631.07 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 79.23 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 1.58 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) -- index.php -- $ cat index.php <?php echo "hello world" ?> $ ab -t 30 -c 50 http://localhost/benchmarks/baseline/index.php Requests per second: 358.21 [#/sec] (mean) Time per request: 139.58 [ms] (mean) Time per request: 2.79 [ms] (mean, across all concurrent requests) -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
