Comments for Technologist For Hire http://www.nexdot.net/blog An everyday attempt to stand out Tue, 02 Mar 2010 02:16:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 Comment on WinCache, Apache and a pretty graph! by Georgehttp://www.nexdot.net/blog/2010/02/09/wincache-apache-and-a-pretty-graph/comment-page-1/#comment-646 George Tue, 02 Mar 2010 02:16:26 +0000 http://www.nexdot.net/blog/?p=146#comment-646 to invar brass: I too have heard all the stories about eAccelerator causing segfaults and apache to crash. I admin a few reasonable high traffic (>100k page views/mo) sites using Drupal 6 on Apache2, PHP5.2 (mod_php5), eAccelerator 0.9.5.3 on FreeBSD 7.1 on a very modest (512M RAM) VPS (that also hosts the database server). These have been running with an uptime of over 1 year, without a single apache crash. Performance is excellent, and I have not experienced ANY issues related to op-code caching or apache. Do you have direct experience with these issues, or are you just repeating other somewhat outdated net references to eAccelerator issues? to invar brass:
I too have heard all the stories about eAccelerator causing segfaults and apache to crash. I admin a few reasonable high traffic (>100k page views/mo) sites using Drupal 6 on Apache2, PHP5.2 (mod_php5), eAccelerator 0.9.5.3 on FreeBSD 7.1 on a very modest (512M RAM) VPS (that also hosts the database server). These have been running with an uptime of over 1 year, without a single apache crash. Performance is excellent, and I have not experienced ANY issues related to op-code caching or apache. Do you have direct experience with these issues, or are you just repeating other somewhat outdated net references to eAccelerator issues?

]]> Comment on WinCache, Apache and a pretty graph! by Invar Brasshttp://www.nexdot.net/blog/2010/02/09/wincache-apache-and-a-pretty-graph/comment-page-1/#comment-311 Invar Brass Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:50:07 +0000 http://www.nexdot.net/blog/?p=146#comment-311 Interesting benchmark.The advantages of opcode caching (& other forms of content caching) are somewhat reduced if you use fastcgi with multiple backend PHP processes - these caching technologies work best with a single parent PHP process. Each PHP process (with eAcc/X/APC) will have it's own separate cache memory. Hence, if you're running 10 fastcgi processes - the memory cache is duplicate 10 times... which kind of defeats the whole purpose (apart from the huge memory hogging)Besides, eAccelerator, xcache & even APC has some serious stability issues - try running Apache+eAcc+mod_php unattended for a few days - when (there is no if) eacc seg faults, it will bring down the whole server! That's one of the reasons why most shared hosting companies don't deploy opcode cachers. IMHO, APC shows slightly better stability than the others, but still it's not there quite.So it comes at a price - either you'll have to settle for improved performance, or stability. Unfortunately, you can't have both - not at the moment at least.For wordpress, I think it's safer to use wp-supercache. Interesting benchmark.

The advantages of opcode caching (& other forms of content caching) are somewhat reduced if you use fastcgi with multiple backend PHP processes – these caching technologies work best with a single parent PHP process. Each PHP process (with eAcc/X/APC) will have it’s own separate cache memory. Hence, if you’re running 10 fastcgi processes – the memory cache is duplicate 10 times… which kind of defeats the whole purpose (apart from the huge memory hogging)

Besides, eAccelerator, xcache & even APC has some serious stability issues – try running Apache+eAcc+mod_php unattended for a few days – when (there is no if) eacc seg faults, it will bring down the whole server! That’s one of the reasons why most shared hosting companies don’t deploy opcode cachers. IMHO, APC shows slightly better stability than the others, but still it’s not there quite.

So it comes at a price – either you’ll have to settle for improved performance, or stability. Unfortunately, you can’t have both – not at the moment at least.

For wordpress, I think it’s safer to use wp-supercache.

]]> Comment on WinCache, Apache and a pretty graph! by Orhan S.http://www.nexdot.net/blog/2010/02/09/wincache-apache-and-a-pretty-graph/comment-page-1/#comment-302 Orhan S. Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:52:51 +0000 http://www.nexdot.net/blog/?p=146#comment-302 Hi, I can not manage to install fastcgi on apache 2.2 server. Is there any installation guide about this? I have tried fastcig.com apache.org but none of them works for me. Hi,
I can not manage to install fastcgi on apache 2.2 server. Is there any installation guide about this? I have tried fastcig.com apache.org but none of them works for me.

]]> Comment on WinCache, Apache and a pretty graph! by Christian Flickinger’s Blog: WinCache, Apache and a pretty graph! | Webs Developerhttp://www.nexdot.net/blog/2010/02/09/wincache-apache-and-a-pretty-graph/comment-page-1/#comment-254 Christian Flickinger’s Blog: WinCache, Apache and a pretty graph! | Webs Developer Fri, 12 Feb 2010 20:01:21 +0000 http://www.nexdot.net/blog/?p=146#comment-254 [...] Flickinger has written up a new blog post today showing some of the benchmarks he’s worked up around the performance of various caching tools with the WinCache caching tool [...] [...] Flickinger has written up a new blog post today showing some of the benchmarks he’s worked up around the performance of various caching tools with the WinCache caching tool [...]

]]> Comment on Updating Facebook status using PHP by Steve Lloydhttp://www.nexdot.net/blog/2007/04/20/updating-facebook-status-using-php/comment-page-2/#comment-230 Steve Lloyd Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:06:06 +0000 http://www.nexdot.net/blog/2007/04/20/updating-facebook-status-using-php/#comment-230 Is there a way you could email me the PHP script? I noticed you took the code out of the post.Thanks,Steve Is there a way you could email me the PHP script? I noticed you took the code out of the post.

Thanks,

Steve

]]> Comment on WinCache, Apache and a pretty graph! by adminhttp://www.nexdot.net/blog/2010/02/09/wincache-apache-and-a-pretty-graph/comment-page-1/#comment-213 admin Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:36:19 +0000 http://www.nexdot.net/blog/?p=146#comment-213 Exactly! That is the point I wanted to get across, regardless of my WinCache testing/findings, was that ANY form of caching is good, and opcode caching is very beneficial. Exactly! That is the point I wanted to get across, regardless of my WinCache testing/findings, was that ANY form of caching is good, and opcode caching is very beneficial.

]]> Comment on WinCache, Apache and a pretty graph! by Bill Karwinhttp://www.nexdot.net/blog/2010/02/09/wincache-apache-and-a-pretty-graph/comment-page-1/#comment-199 Bill Karwin Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:31:00 +0000 http://www.nexdot.net/blog/?p=146#comment-199 What I take away from this is a set of metrics that shows that *any* opcode cache technology consistently gives between 300-400% performance improvement over using no opcode caching.This may seem like another "duh" point to you and other PHP-savvy people, but there are a lot of PHP developers out there (and not just newbies) who don't know anything about opcode caching -- they don't know that it gives this large a benefit, and they don't know it's so transparent to employ in any application.So, well done on the blog post! Keep spreading the word! What I take away from this is a set of metrics that shows that *any* opcode cache technology consistently gives between 300-400% performance improvement over using no opcode caching.

This may seem like another “duh” point to you and other PHP-savvy people, but there are a lot of PHP developers out there (and not just newbies) who don’t know anything about opcode caching — they don’t know that it gives this large a benefit, and they don’t know it’s so transparent to employ in any application.

So, well done on the blog post! Keep spreading the word!

]]> Comment on WinCache, Apache and a pretty graph! by Elizabeth M Smithhttp://www.nexdot.net/blog/2010/02/09/wincache-apache-and-a-pretty-graph/comment-page-1/#comment-197 Elizabeth M Smith Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:22:46 +0000 http://www.nexdot.net/blog/?p=146#comment-197 Interesting findings - the reason Wincache doesn't mention Apache is because MOST people use mod_php with apache, even on windows (php5apache2_2.dll ring a bell?) When using mod_php on windows you need to use the thread safe version of PHP - apache threaded, mod_php threaded, all happy.<br><br>Wincache does not DO thread safe - hence it can only be used with PHP fastcgi - so if you're using fastcgi with PHP on apache on windows (if you're deploying apache on windows I'd highly suggest it) then it works great ;) Interesting findings – the reason Wincache doesn't mention Apache is because MOST people use mod_php with apache, even on windows (php5apache2_2.dll ring a bell?) When using mod_php on windows you need to use the thread safe version of PHP – apache threaded, mod_php threaded, all happy.

Wincache does not DO thread safe – hence it can only be used with PHP fastcgi – so if you're using fastcgi with PHP on apache on windows (if you're deploying apache on windows I'd highly suggest it) then it works great ;)

]]> Comment on Updating Facebook status using PHP by chrishttp://www.nexdot.net/blog/2007/04/20/updating-facebook-status-using-php/comment-page-2/#comment-64 chris Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:49:29 +0000 http://www.nexdot.net/blog/2007/04/20/updating-facebook-status-using-php/#comment-64 @Alste, Great code. works perfectly except for one thing. I cant enter a URL (bit.ly) in the status. Do you know of anyway to insert a link?Great job! @Alste, Great code. works perfectly except for one thing. I cant enter a URL (bit.ly) in the status. Do you know of anyway to insert a link?

Great job!

]]> Comment on Updating Facebook status using PHP by JKhttp://www.nexdot.net/blog/2007/04/20/updating-facebook-status-using-php/comment-page-2/#comment-63 JK Wed, 09 Dec 2009 06:50:42 +0000 http://www.nexdot.net/blog/2007/04/20/updating-facebook-status-using-php/#comment-63 @Alste : Thank you very much!! @Alste : Thank you very much!!

]]>