Edit report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=74178&edit=1
ID: 74178
Comment by: alex at alex-at dot ru
Reported by: alex at alex-at dot ru
Summary: Suggestion/Idea: Stateful / Application Script
Status: Open
Type: Feature/Change Request
Package: FPM related
PHP Version: Next Major Version
Block user comment: N
Private report: N
New Comment:
>> seriously - it don't work that way in no environment
I don't know where you got this 'double cores = double requests' thing. I'm
talking about quite the contrary as well. For math, 1000/1.1 = 909.something, do you want it or not.
Your i7 was able to run 1.3 request in parallel at average, hence the ~1200.
---
Next thing, I'd prefer to stop the empty bickering here, it's completely pointless.
The whole point of this ticket is that _realtime_ applications like gaming, monitoring, telemetry or
realtime process management can all be encompassed by PHP as well with a relatively small change not
introducing any heavy complexity internally.
I'm quite sure PHP devs already considered this one multiple times, so this is just in case it
simply got lost/forgotten in the pile of things to evolve :)
Previous Comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2017-02-27 19:52:52] spam2 at rhsoft dot net
> 1000/1.1 is obviously about 909 requests per second per core
seriously - it don't work that way in no environment as well as "oh, i double the cores
and get twice requests per second" don#t work in real life
also no idea why the feature request is "FPM related" and if what ever you consider would
be FPM specific and not work the same way with mod_php you clearly see it has no place in the
ecosystem
get xdebug and look where you really lose performance
at the same time realize that benchmarking is *not* that easy as you may think - when as example
mod_defalte is part of the game php requests are even faster handeled than static files with the
same content
so before you think you need new features please learn how to benachmark na drealize *waht* youa re
benchmarking in reality - often this are two different things
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2017-02-27 19:45:13] alex at alex-at dot ru
1000/1.1 is obviously about 909 requests per second per core. With more cores it should be more of
course, but not linearly. And again: it heavily depends on application itself.
In our case, final content is quite small, and will never saturate even 100Mbps. It's using
~50% CPU time in FPM process, and most of that time is taken by script initialization. We need to
reconnect to memcached, to MySQL, open some files for second level cache and pre-connect to ZeroMQ
for case of cache miss (connection and socket start is asynchronous, but takes time). In a case of
both levels cache miss we sometimes need to wait a bit of time for ZeroMQ data to arrive from
publisher. This ZeroMQ magic could be autonomously happening in background if script was running in
'appserver' mode, making latency of cache misses negligible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2017-02-27 19:30:50] spam2 at rhsoft dot net
> Man. 1.1 to 3.5 ms response time is good, but not
> any news. It's only 300 to 900 requests per second
check your math!
on a i7 from 2011 it's 1200 request per seconds, on our current hardware it's 4500
requests per second with small contents and with larger contents it saturates easily the gigabit
network and PHP is for sure not the bottenleck
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2017-02-27 19:22:04] alex at alex-at dot ru
>>> because when you need a app-server than just use a app-server and don't abuse PHP
The whole point of this feature request is that PHP can easily be evolved to utilize best of both
worlds.
Reloading less state is obviously good, but manageability and extensibility of PHP code is obviously
good as well. So when choosing between PHP/niche appserver, it's not an easy choice.
The appserver choice also requires a whole second stack, meaning more developer time and skills are
needed.
>>> that said from a happy user which has generate times between 1.1 and 3.5 ms
Man. 1.1 to 3.5 ms response time is good, but not any news. It's only 300 to 900 requests per
second. Also, what's good in our case can be not attainable for larger applications with larger
state.
I.e. we have a real world running PHP application that handles ~1000 requests per second per 8 cores
as well (2 to 3 requests per second from 300-500 simultaneous 'realtime' clients),
connecting to MySQL and ZeroMQ and keeping a lot of state in multilevel cache.
It really could benefit a lot from appserver strategy... if there was one. Reducing cache complexity
and cutting off all complex state caching code on the way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2017-02-27 19:06:06] spam2 at rhsoft dot net
> So why just not bring common 'appserver' paradigm to PHP?
because when you need a app-server than just use a app-server and don't abuse PHP
if "initialization of all database/cache/etc. connections and classes takes age" the just
seek the bloat in your application - that said from a happy user which has generate times between
1.1 and 3.5 ms including connect to database, load templates, load cached contents just because our
code is designed to have a small footprint and oads things on demand but nothing unneeded
NO don't introduce all sort of bugs and race-conditions by trying to make something out of PHP
which is not PHP - a with little exceptions "shared-nothing" architecture
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The remainder of the comments for this report are too long. To view
the rest of the comments, please view the bug report online at
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=74178
--
Edit this bug report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=74178&edit=1