Re: Profiling PHP
| From: | Zeev Suraski | Date: | Mon, 13 May 2002 15:53:58 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Profiling PHP | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to php-dev+get-83996@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
The link you specified doesn't work (it's .net)... Nice touch on their part on having a page that doesn't render under IE :)
Anyway, the important question is whether you're using it under Linux or some other OS. Under Linux, unless it has some kernel module, it's going to be horribly inaccurate. After finding this page, it does appear as if it's using a kernel module. Congrats to Linux for finally having a usable profiler!
It's pretty consistent with the results I got using NuMega's profiler about a year ago (I don't remember the exact numbers, but the functions are more or less the same).
Zeev
At 18:43 13/05/2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
I did specify the profiler on line 4 of the message. And it is a pretty good one actually. On Mon, 13 May 2002, Zeev Suraski wrote: We already tried our best to optimize most of the functions that show up in profiling. Not surprisingly, they are mostly the infrastructure functions... What profiler are you using? If it's under Linux, chances are it's *extremely* inaccurate. Profiling under Linux is horrible. Zeev At 17:42 13/05/2002, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:I did a quick little profile of a lightly hit PHP server running a variety of PHP apps such as IMP, Gallery and a couple of small MySQL-driven apps. A semi-representative tiny snapshot of what I would consider normal usage of PHP. I threw oprofile at it (oprofile.sourceforge.org) and here are the results: Cpu type: PIII Cpu speed was (MHz estimation) : 868.000000 Counter 0 counted CPU_CLK_UNHALTED events (clocks processor is not halted) with a unit mask of 0x00 (Not set) count 600000vma samples %-age symbol name 001a56bc 1018 19.7096 zendparse 001a9f4c 369 7.14424 lex_scan 001b1ea4 349 6.75702 _emalloc 001d4ca0 326 6.31171 execute 001b21b8 301 5.82769 _efree 001cdaf8 238 4.60794 zend_inline_hash_func 001ca85c 238 4.60794 zend_hash_add_or_update 001f5960 171 3.31075 mail_msgno 001b3028 170 3.29138 _mem_block_check 0015dcb4 127 2.45886 php_var_unserialize 001ccae0 120 2.32333 zend_hash_find 001baf6c 81 1.56825 _zval_ptr_dtor 001c443c 69 1.33591 _zval_dtor 0015701c 66 1.27783 smart_str_print_unsigned 001cbda8 53 1.02614 zend_hash_destroy 001db270 51 0.987415 _get_zval_ptr 001ca5f8 48 0.929332 _zend_is_inconsistent 00156c08 43 0.832527 smart_str_appendl_ex 001cb9b8 41 0.793804 zend_hash_rehash 001cc6cc 39 0.755082 zend_hash_copy 001f64d0 36 0.696999 mail_gc_msg 0015ef14 33 0.638916 process_nested_data 001563b0 33 0.638916 php_var_serialize_intern 001b27fc 31 0.600194 _estrndup 00208200 29 0.561471 mm_blocknotify 0015ee18 28 0.54211 var_push 001c45c0 27 0.522749 zval_add_ref 0015f2b4 26 0.503388 parse_iv2 001bdaf0 25 0.484027 destroy_op_array 001c4970 24 0.464666 _zval_ptr_dtor_wrapper 001cb3b4 22 0.425944 zend_hash_index_update_or_next_insert 001b2440 21 0.406583 _erealloc 001c3560 20 0.387222 zend_str_tolower 001b9970 20 0.387222 zendlex 001c3dfc 19 0.367861 zend_ptr_stack_n_push 001d398c 18 0.3485 zend_fetch_var_address 001c83cc 17 0.329138 add_next_index_long 001c45d0 17 0.329138 _zval_copy_ctor 001bdcd0 16 0.309777 init_opNot all that useful. Would be cool to run this for longer on a busy site to get more accurate numbers. It does give some indication of where small code optimizations would make the biggest overall difference. -Rasmus -- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php