Re: Re: [RFC] [DISCUSSION] pecl_http

Hi Stas! On 05/02/15 21:28, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > Hi! > >> Does the following kcachegrind screenshot give an idea (I used a minimum >> node cost of 10% to simplify the graph)? >> >> Left is raphf enabled (24M Ir) and on the right raphf disabled (35M Ir): >> http://dev.iworks.at/ext-http/raphf.png >> >> Have a look on the top-most far-right highlighted block, which is solely >> devoted to tearing up curl instances when raphf is disabled. > > I still don't understand why the comparison is made against worst > possible implementation (going through all connection cycle every time) > as opposed to logical implementation of HTTP connection object > supporting keepalive. > Uhm, I'm not sure I understand :-? Weren't I supposed to measure exacly that? Let me know, if you wanted something else to be compared. -- Regards, Mike