RE: [PHP-DEV] ZTS - why are you using it?
| From: | Pierre Joye | Date: | Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:15:53 +0000 |
| Subject: | RE: [PHP-DEV] ZTS - why are you using it? | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-65352@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Jan 29, 2013 12:10 PM, "Zeev Suraski" <zeev@zend.com> wrote:
>
> > The other main reason from my side to keep ZTS is Windows. Windows
> cannot
> > perform well using process based SAPI.
>
> Windows actually works quite well with FastCGI. So well Microsoft even
> created their own version for IIS. It's outperforming the ISAPI module by
> a wide margin.
Laziness and design mistake. Everything on windows (AD,IIS, asp.net, etc)
uses thread.
And no, nuts is not faster. I am not talking about PHP zts, but in general.
> Other than Apache/Windows not having FastCGI support(*), I really can't
> imagine any situation where using ZTS inside of a Web Server context makes
> any sense at all. I wouldn't call it a new trend, it's both old (I've
> been pushing for it since at least 2006, probably earlier) and with very
> solid technical reasons (faster, more reliable).
Miss the rest of my mail or? Current implementation is outdated and slow.
> > Yes, TSRM is horrible and does not match modern thread safe
> implementation
> > (APC does it better for its usage f.e. using rwlock).
>
> Note that I wasn't talking about the implementation of ZTS, but why you
> would want to use it in the first place. I actually think that using
> thread local storage is much better than using locks - but if you can make
> the whole problem disappear because there's no need for thread safety,
> that's even better. Why heavily invest in something unless there's a very
> good reason to use it?
See what I wrote in my previous reply.
Cheers,