Re: [PHP-DEV] Calling performance geeks

2006-03-13 Thread Andi Gutmans
Hey, Thanks for posting this info. It definitely sounds like we should concentrate on the 0 length script at this point. I saw Dmitry already made some good improvements. It'd be helpful if others also run such an empty benchmark because it seems like the two trees are on par now and that it

Re: [PHP-DEV] Calling performance geeks

2006-03-13 Thread Rasmus Lerdorf
Andi Gutmans wrote: Thanks for posting this info. It definitely sounds like we should concentrate on the 0 length script at this point. I saw Dmitry already made some good improvements. Yup, that patch helped. And I guess on some architectures 5.1 is faster now, but there is still a bit of a

Re: [PHP-DEV] Calling performance geeks

2006-03-13 Thread Marcus Boerger
Hello Dmitry, if you mean the hash stuff you changed then you did quite some mistakes. Because the normal apply functions don't respect the ZEND_HASH_* consts as i mailed last week. marcus Monday, March 13, 2006, 1:12:01 PM, you wrote: > Hi Rasmus, > I made two improvements in 5.1 and run th

Re: [PHP-DEV] Calling performance geeks

2006-03-13 Thread Nuno Lopes
MAIL PROTECTED]>; "'internals'" Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 12:12 PM Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Calling performance geeks Hi Rasmus, I made two improvements in 5.1 and run the same bechmarks on Intel Pentium M 1.5GHz 2M cache. top/top5/top10 php-5.1 740 550 430 req/s

Re: [PHP-DEV] Calling performance geeks

2006-03-13 Thread Edin Kadribasic
To: Dmitry Stogov >>Cc: 'Rasmus Lerdorf'; 'internals' >>Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Calling performance geeks >> >> >>I also see very little difference (in favor of php4) on my >>test box (Dual Xeon 3.2GHz, running Linux 2.6.12 Fedora Core 3): >> >

RE: [PHP-DEV] Calling performance geeks

2006-03-13 Thread Dmitry Stogov
Have you rebuilt 5.1 HEAD today? Dmitry. > -Original Message- > From: Edin Kadribasic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 5:32 PM > To: Dmitry Stogov > Cc: 'Rasmus Lerdorf'; 'internals' > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Calling per

Re: [PHP-DEV] Calling performance geeks

2006-03-13 Thread Edin Kadribasic
I also see very little difference (in favor of php4) on my test box (Dual Xeon 3.2GHz, running Linux 2.6.12 Fedora Core 3): php-5.1 (top.php) plain 3723 req/sec apc stat=1 6220 req/sec apc stat=0 6278 req/sec php-4.4 (4top.php) plain 3978 req/sec apc stat=1 6421 req/sec apc stat=0 6650 req/sec p

RE: [PHP-DEV] Calling performance geeks

2006-03-13 Thread Dmitry Stogov
Hi Rasmus, I made two improvements in 5.1 and run the same bechmarks on Intel Pentium M 1.5GHz 2M cache. top/top5/top10 php-5.1 740 550 430 req/sec php-4.4 680 440 290 req/sec May be the problem is AMD chip? :) Thanks. Dmitry. > -Original Me

Re: [PHP-DEV] Calling performance geeks

2006-03-13 Thread Rasmus Lerdorf
Marcus Boerger wrote: Hello Rasmus, not a thing for 5.1 or 4.4 but in 5.2 we could change to a case insensitive comparison function. That would allow us to change nearly all of strcasecmp to memcmp. And in may cases it means one less allocation. And it also means a lot of less code. The casins

Re: [PHP-DEV] Calling performance geeks

2006-03-13 Thread Marcus Boerger
Hello Rasmus, not a thing for 5.1 or 4.4 but in 5.2 we could change to a case insensitive comparison function. That would allow us to change nearly all of strcasecmp to memcmp. And in may cases it means one less allocation. And it also means a lot of less code. The casinsensitive comparision is

Re: [PHP-DEV] Calling performance geeks

2006-03-12 Thread Rasmus Lerdorf
With an empty.php file 0 bytes long I get: PHP 5.1.3-dev (no opcode cache, variables_order=GP) 1168-1225 req/sec over 5 runs of 1 requests each. PHP 4.4 same config 1897-1951 req/sec Just to make sure, since in this case an extra header would make a big difference, the raw headers that

Re: [PHP-DEV] Calling performance geeks

2006-03-12 Thread Andi Gutmans
What are the results you're getting on an empty script? I'm just curious whether it's execution speed or startup speed where you are seeing the big hit. There were changes in both which might have slowed things down. Another reason to be more careful re: bloat :) Anid At 08:34 PM 3/12/2006, R