Re: Re: O+ 1st results

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Jan Ehrhardt <phpdev@ehrhardt.nl> wrote: > Pierre Joye in php.internals (Fri, 15 Feb 2013 09:54:03 +0100): >>On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Jan Ehrhardt <phpdev@ehrhardt.nl> wrote: > >>>>�M >>>>ޜ��ṭ�
X�hhttp://windows.php.net/downloads/snaps/ostc/pftt/perf/results-20130213-5.4.11-5.5.0devvc11.html >>> >>> Is that the column 5.5.0devvc11 under APC -igbinary? I have a Drupal7 >>> site running on my devserver (W2K8, Apache 2.4.3, PHP 5.3.21 TS as >>> mod_fcgid) and do not get the idea it is running at one third (21.9 / >>> 69.4) of the speed of the same site without any cache at all. >> >>No, but O+ is broken right now in ZTS, it makes no sense to do further >>testing before it works for more than 0.5 request ;) >> >>But running TS builds in FCGI reduces drastically the issues due to >>thread safety bugs, while it makes no sense to use them, fcgi and the >>likes should rely on NTS builds. ZTS will do all kind of locks where >>it is absolutely not required, that explains at least 15-20% of the >>perf drop, virtual paths cover the rest. > > I will try to compare the same site side-by-side with different configs. > The dev-server has 4 IPv4=adresses which gives a lot of config options. > >>>>Mediawiki is slower because it does not support yet O+ for usercache, >>>>along other things. >>> >>> Is the same the case with Symfony? >> >>no, MediaWiki caching modules only support APC or Wincache so far. > > Is the performance drop for Symfony in the Wincache test due to the fact > that wincache is optimized for IIS or are there other reasons? Did not analyze it yet. WinCache is not IIS optimized but FastCGI (read: process based). Also we did not enabled file IO cache, which could bring it up in line. But as neither APC or O+ have it, it cannot be compared. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye