Bug #48403 [Com]: shell_exec() is much slower than running from shell

Edit report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=48403&edit=1 ID: 48403 Comment by: fortwebsolutions at gmail dot com Reported by: gregor at hostgis dot com Summary: shell_exec() is much slower than running from shell Status: Not a bug Type: Bug Package: Performance problem Operating System: Linux PHP Version: 5.2.9 Block user comment: N Private report: N New Comment: You are correct, i had to add the user apache was running as a sudoer, i know this is not optimal. Maybe there is a was to allow the apache user to run nice without the sudo, but that is not the point. The slowness of exec() is do to low process priority and is not actually a bug in either PHP or apache. Previous Comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [2018-01-29 16:44:10] spam2 at rhsoft dot net and no webserver setup would allow "sudo" anyways ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [2018-01-29 16:41:49] spam2 at rhsoft dot net https://stackoverflow.com/questions/14277910/php-exec-performance/48505455#48505455 is nonsense because the command on the left side is ececuted and than the output piped to "nice" which is way too late ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [2018-01-29 16:21:26] fortwebsolutions at gmail dot com I believe i have solved this, it is not an out right problem with either PHP or apache, rather a process prioritization problem that cane be solved by adding `nice -n -20' before the command to be executed. for the full answer see https://stackoverflow.com/questions/14277910/php-exec-performance/48505455#48505455 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [2018-01-20 14:35:38] oliver at openbrackets dot net @ spam2 at rhsoft dot net Ok, calm down. The final comment was intended as a "joke", thought that might have been obvious? I know that php's most popular deployment SAPI is still apache, probably. Your usage is 100% opposite from ours. We have multiple own-iron app-servers running the same app for a single domain/app with load balancer in front. So we switched from apache 15yrs ago and never looked back. Hence the joke. The whole php process per webserver process/worker is completely unsuitable for our type of usage, so php-fpm was the obvious choice. Peace and love...enjoy. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [2018-01-20 13:08:59] spam2 at rhsoft dot net > Moral of story: Who runs php on apache anyway? Use nginx/lighttpd + php-fpm! laughable attitude! php-fpm brings a ton of other troubles (php-options per directory/htaccess and so on) and as long as a benchmark on a 6 years old 4-core desktop machine with current patchlevel (metldown/spectre) shows 10000 requests/second on our core-cms show me *one* valid reason for rebuild many hundret of vhost-configs with your perfered toy ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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=48403 -- Edit this bug report at https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=48403&edit=1