Am 20.06.2010 23:07, schrieb Rasmus Lerdorf:
> No, it is not enough to just have source code. The developers need to
> play along as well.
Which reminds me: does anybody actually know who develops xcache? Last
time I checked the answer I found was: moo.
--
Sebastian Bergmann
Am 20.06.2010 20:21, schrieb Ilia Alshanetsky:
> I for one think it is a really good idea, there is no compelling
> reason not to include APC, I would even go as far as say we should
> enable it by default.
+1 for bundling
+1 for removing the "layer of checks for macros" for PHP <= 5.4
+1 for b
On Jun 20, 2010, at 10:06 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On 6/20/10 7:55 PM, Scott MacVicar wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 20, 2010, at 11:21 AM, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
>>
>>> I for one think it is a really good idea, there is no compelling
>>> reason not to include APC, I would even go as far as say we shou
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
The test was done on Windows... I never said it was IIS only, it is however
win32 only.
Sorry - Most people using it will no have bought win64 yet was the point and the
test was done on win32 as far as I can tell. Anyway Pierre keeps saying that 64
bit is slower anyway ;
On 06/20/2010 10:21 PM, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> I for one think it is a really good idea, there is no compelling
> reason not to include APC, I would even go as far as say we should
> enable it by default.
+1 on adding into the distro
-1 on enabling by default
--
Wbr,
Antony Dovgal
---
http://
On 6/20/10 7:55 PM, Scott MacVicar wrote:
>
> On Jun 20, 2010, at 11:21 AM, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
>
>> I for one think it is a really good idea, there is no compelling
>> reason not to include APC, I would even go as far as say we should
>> enable it by default.
>>
>> +1
>
> We'd need to get h
On Jun 20, 2010, at 11:21 AM, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> I for one think it is a really good idea, there is no compelling
> reason not to include APC, I would even go as far as say we should
> enable it by default.
>
> +1
We'd need to get http://wiki.php.net/rfc/zendsignals committed before we e
Hi!
If there is a better alternative to APC we can bundle with PHP, I am
definitely open to exploring that idea. However the alternatives I am
familiar either are closed source or have licences incompatible with
PHP, and that's without getting into the "better" argument.
I don't know any bette
Stas,
If there is a better alternative to APC we can bundle with PHP, I am
definitely open to exploring that idea. However the alternatives I am
familiar either are closed source or have licences incompatible with
PHP, and that's without getting into the "better" argument.
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at
Hi!
This is an unfixed PHP bug. There have been a number of threads about
the object destruction order on internals. It isn't just APC that is
affected by this. Other extensions are affected as well.
I understand that this effect is caused by the fact that APC destroys
PHP classes earlier
Hi!
The point is that it would be there for people to use, with as little
effort as possible, which would be changing 1 byte inside the INI
file. The issues APC is having with certain code is not specific to
APC, and does happen with other open source caches. Perhaps we need to
We don't discus
The point is that it would be there for people to use, with as little
effort as possible, which would be changing 1 byte inside the INI
file. The issues APC is having with certain code is not specific to
APC, and does happen with other open source caches. Perhaps we need to
examine the validity of
Hi!
Even if the extension is compiled by default, we can (and probably
should) leave apc.enabled at Off, recognizing some the things you are
mentioning.
I'm not sure I see the point of compiling it if it's disabled. Anyway,
most of the distributions probably would make it .so just as it happe
On 6/20/10 7:44 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Can you elaborate? What "average user"-facing features are non-obvious?
>> We should document them if nothing else.
>
> This recently caught my attention:
> http://pecl.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=16745
> As I understood from this bug, APC changes h
On 6/20/10 7:44 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Can you elaborate? What "average user"-facing features are non-obvious?
>> We should document them if nothing else.
>
> This recently caught my attention:
> http://pecl.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=16745
> As I understood from this bug, APC changes h
Stas,
Even if the extension is compiled by default, we can (and probably
should) leave apc.enabled at Off, recognizing some the things you are
mentioning.
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 10:44 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Can you elaborate? What "average user"-facing features are non-obvious?
>>
Hi!
Can you elaborate? What "average user"-facing features are non-obvious?
We should document them if nothing else.
This recently caught my attention: http://pecl.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=16745
As I understood from this bug, APC changes how PHP works (since it works
without APC but not with i
Including into core of PHP has no impact on other opcode caches, if
they do a better job then APC, people can definitely (and should) use
them. The main purpose of including APC would be to raise the level of
awareness PHP users to the fact opcode caches exist and should be used
in virtually all in
Hi
2010/6/21 Stas Malyshev :
> Hi!
>
> Speaking of which - does apc work for Windows? Last time I checked (more
> than a year ago) it was extremely unstable. Was it fixed? What about other
> popular PHP platforms?
Me and Pierre put quite some work into getting APC to perform much
better on Window
"Ilia Alshanetsky" wrote in message
news:86a0c51a-e6f7-48f2-a065-eabe74c6a...@prohost.org...
> Several reasons:
>
> 1) APC is well maintained, by the same people who work on PHP.
>
> 2) The license does not preclude it's inclusion into the base version.
>
> 3) most people don't use any opcode cas
On 6/20/10 2:32 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>> On 6/20/10 2:05 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
>>> Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On 6/20/10 1:21 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> ( Foregot to change address again :( )
> Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
>> What are your views on including APC in
APC has certain effects on the code that are far from obvious, and
enabling it by default would significantly complicate the average
user's learning curve.
Can you elaborate? What "average user"-facing features are non-obvious?
We should document them if nothing else.
S
--
PHP Internals -
Hi!
Sure, but that's win32 only
Speaking of which - does apc work for Windows? Last time I checked (more
than a year ago) it was extremely unstable. Was it fixed? What about
other popular PHP platforms?
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
(408)454-69
Hi!
I for one think it is a really good idea, there is no compelling
reason not to include APC, I would even go as far as say we should
enable it by default.
I do not think it is a very good idea. APC has certain effects on the
code that are far from obvious, and enabling it by default would
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
Sure, but that's win32 only
Does that matter at present?
http://www.nexdot.net/blog/2010/02/09/wincache-apache-and-a-pretty-graph/
My only objection to bundling yet another package into the core distribution is
that it should be removable as well. eaccelerator works fo
Several reasons:
1) APC is well maintained, by the same people who work on PHP.
2) The license does not preclude it's inclusion into the base version.
3) most people don't use any opcode cashes, which is not ideal when it
comes to PHP.
4) apc inclusion does not prevent alternatives from exi
Sure, but that's win32 only
Ilia Alshanetsky
CIO/CSO
Centah Inc.
On 2010-06-20, at 16:54, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On 6/20/10 1:21 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
( Foregot to change address again :( )
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
What are your views on including
hi,
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> Perhaps a poll on what people are actually using in production?
The very large majority of the users I met use APC or Zend Cache
solutions. However the point here is that as long as the extension is
not php.net, they won't and can't be
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On 6/20/10 2:05 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On 6/20/10 1:21 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
( Foregot to change address again :( )
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
What are your views on including APC in the core, or reasons not to?
Dictatorship?
Optional module which
On 6/20/10 2:05 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>> On 6/20/10 1:21 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
>>> ( Foregot to change address again :( )
>>> Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
What are your views on including APC in the core, or reasons not to?
>>>
>>> Dictatorship?
>>> Optional module which
Perhaps by adding it to core the original reasons for alternatives will be
reduced and the things that make those special could be implemented into apc?
On Jun 20, 2010, at 1:56 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 20.06.2010, at
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On 6/20/10 1:21 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
( Foregot to change address again :( )
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
What are your views on including APC in the core, or reasons not to?
Dictatorship?
Optional module which have well used alternatives should not be proced
on by default!
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> I for one think it is a really good idea, there is no compelling
> reason not to include APC, I would even go as far as say we should
> enable it by default.
I would like to add it as well; but not turn it on by default. Not
because it wouldn't be g
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>
> On 20.06.2010, at 22:21, Lester Caine wrote:
>
> > ( Foregot to change address again :( )
> > Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> >> What are your views on including APC in the core, or reasons not to?
> >
> > Dictatorship?
> > Optional module w
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> On 6/20/10 1:21 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> > ( Foregot to change address again :( )
> > Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> >> What are your views on including APC in the core, or reasons not to?
> >
> > Dictatorship?
> > Optional module which have well used alte
On 6/20/10 1:21 PM, Lester Caine wrote:
> ( Foregot to change address again :( )
> Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
>> What are your views on including APC in the core, or reasons not to?
>
> Dictatorship?
> Optional module which have well used alternatives should not be proced
> on by default! Probably mo
+1 as Lukas, on adding but not enabled by default.
On Jun 20, 2010, at 4:39 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
>
> On 20.06.2010, at 22:21, Lester Caine wrote:
>
>> ( Foregot to change address again :( )
>> Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
>>> What are your views on including APC in the core, or reasons no
On 20.06.2010, at 22:21, Lester Caine wrote:
> ( Foregot to change address again :( )
> Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
>> What are your views on including APC in the core, or reasons not to?
>
> Dictatorship?
> Optional module which have well used alternatives should not be proced on by
> default! Pro
( Foregot to change address again :( )
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
What are your views on including APC in the core, or reasons not to?
Dictatorship?
Optional module which have well used alternatives should not be proced on by
default! Probably more people use alternatives and have for years?
--
Is this only useful for 5.2.x and is it only for realpath() or is it for any
sort of path lookup and caching? Like resolving include paths and such?
On Jun 20, 2010, at 6:37 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> realpath_cache_size = 256k
> realpath_cache_ttl = 7200
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Deve
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Jonathan Bond-Caron wrote:
> SQLITE_API int sqlite3_busy_timeout(sqlite3*, int ms);
>
> b) No persistent connections
>
> Any reason why it wasn't migrated from sqlite.c?
It is now in trunk.
Cheers,
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.
I for one think it is a really good idea, there is no compelling
reason not to include APC, I would even go as far as say we should
enable it by default.
+1
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
> Greetings
>
> As the process for trunk grows, I think we should consider whi
On 6/19/10 11:49 PM, Vincenzo D'Amore wrote:
> Could anybody explain me why I have this behavior and if it is attributable
> to a misconfiguration of php?
This doesn't look like a PHP misconfiguration. It looks more like an
application-level issue. Do a grep for "realpath" in your application
co
On 20.06.2010, at 12:01, Ulf Wendel wrote:
> Johannes Schlüter schrieb:
>> On Sat, 2010-06-19 at 12:45 +0200, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
>>> Am 19.06.2010 11:33, schrieb Patrick ALLAERT:
What are the possible actions/alternatives?
>>> I think this was already mentioned: add a BC layer to ext/
Hi,
are you using the "suhosin" patch for PHP ? I can see the same lstat
behaviour with my setups, because of suhosin.
But for the 8 tentative of reading, are you sure php deliver only one
page here ?
Olivier
Le 20/06/2010 08:49, Vincenzo D'Amore a écrit :
Hello,
to have a performance prob
Johannes Schlüter schrieb:
On Sat, 2010-06-19 at 12:45 +0200, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
Am 19.06.2010 11:33, schrieb Patrick ALLAERT:
What are the possible actions/alternatives?
I think this was already mentioned: add a BC layer to ext/mysqli so
that the "new" extension supports the old mysq
If you have more than once directory in your include path, then the engine
have to look up the given file in each of the given directories, which is in
the worst case scenario (the given file is in the directory which is in the
last in the include path) could mean N lookup, where N is the number of
Hi Dinh,
sorry, I don't get why having a wrong include_path configuration inside WP
should have a negative outcome like have 8 tentatives in order to read this
file.
Regards,
Vincenzo
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Dinh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Unfortunately, your web application abused include_pat
Yes, right.
# /usr/libexec/php5-cgi/bin/php -v
PHP 5.2.9 (cli) (built: Sep 14 2009 16:52:55)
Copyright (c) 1997-2009 The PHP Group
Zend Engine v2.2.0, Copyright (c) 1998-2009 Zend Technologies
with the ionCube PHP Loader v3.1.33, Copyright (c) 2002-2007, by ionCube
Ltd.
# httpd -V
Server vers
Hi.
Shouldn't we seeing failed lstats if the include_path would be the problem?
And I thought that the php engine itself tries to cache the fileinfo, to
minimize the lstat calls ( see
http://hu.php.net/manual/en/function.clearstatcache.php )
So I think that we shouldn't see this much duplicate lst
Hi,
Unfortunately, your web application abused include_path. You can change WP
source code to include PHP files using absolute path
Regards,
Dinh
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Vincenzo D'Amore wrote:
> Hello,
>
> to have a performance problem with apache/mod_php5 configuration under
> heavy
On 20.06.2010, at 10:49, Vincenzo D'Amore wrote:
> Hello,
>
> to have a performance problem with apache/mod_php5 configuration under heavy
> load the website becomes too slow.
> Using strace I found what appears to me a strange behavior
> The strange behavior I want point out is related to a seq
52 matches
Mail list logo
