PHP caching and optimization: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:11, 20 March 2003

APC

http://apc.communityconnect.com/

Caches compiled PHP scripts to avoid the overhead of parsing and compiling the code every time pages are loaded. Wikipedia has used it off and on; but more off than on because we've had some problems in the past with mysterious corruption of the cache files, etc.

I've just upgraded to a recent CVS version, we'll see how it goes... (It was still bumping up our load and not helping very much. It still messes up the rdf generation.)

PHPA or Zend Optimizer

Use Zend Optimizer? PHPA? (have we tried using the Zend Optimizer or PHPA?)
- These two projects are not free software (though they are free of charge), which makes me rather leery. Although since they are theoretically just drop-in accelerators and are not required, we would not be made dependant on closed-source software by using them for a boost. --Brion VIBBER
- While I too wish it was OSS, I don't see what the loss is in at least giving them a shot. If they change their license in the future, then we are (at the very least) no worse off than we are now. Anything to help the performance is horribly needed. Wikipedia is nearly unusable during the daytime hours, and any kind of solution is dearly needed. --Marumari
  - I'll give them a shot, see if they're less problematic than APC. --Brion VIBBER

I've installed PHPA, we'll see how it goes. --Brion VIBBER 21:34 20 Mar 2003 (UTC)

Comparing the 15 minutes before installation with the 15 minutes after, using the English Wikipedia logfile:

20030320211530 |20030320213030| 20030320214530
Before cutoff: 2689 pages served, runtime 14463.218 seconds
That's 0.373472222222222pages/sec served
At avg time per page of 5.37866046857568

After cutoff: 4169 pages served, runtime 8020.671 seconds
That's 0.579027777777778pages/sec served
At avg time per page of 1.92388366514752

Load average has also fallen somewhat, from 15-20 to 7-10 range. I'm reasonably happy with it so far, hopefully it won't have any other problems. --Brion VIBBER 21:51 20 Mar 2003 (UTC)

Well, that works out to a 55% percent increase in throughput and a 64% decrease in load time. If it doesn't break anything, it seems like a big win to me. --Marumari 22:08 20 Mar 2003 (UTC)

That's only a few minutes -- during which traffic type can change -- so it's not a reliable data set, but it's a good sign. :) --Brion VIBBER 22:11 20 Mar 2003 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:08, 20 March 2003 edit Marumari (talk \| contribs) 51 edits Re: Performance ← Older edit		Revision as of 22:11, 20 March 2003 edit undo Brooke Vibber (talk \| contribs) Autopatrollers 2,775 edits Lie with statistics Newer edit →
Line 27:		Line 27:

	Well, that works out to a 55% percent increase in throughput and a 64% decrease in load time. If it doesn't break anything, it seems like a big win to me. --[[User:Marumari\|Marumari]] 22:08 20 Mar 2003 (UTC)		Well, that works out to a 55% percent increase in throughput and a 64% decrease in load time. If it doesn't break anything, it seems like a big win to me. --[[User:Marumari\|Marumari]] 22:08 20 Mar 2003 (UTC)

			:That's only a few minutes -- during which traffic type can change -- so it's not a reliable data set, but it's a good sign. :) --[[User:Brion VIBBER\|Brion VIBBER]] 22:11 20 Mar 2003 (UTC)