Re: performance: large includes vs small includes with lots of reads

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 11:41:10 -0500 (CDT), Hans H. Anderson
<email@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm trying to tweak my server a bit and wonder if it is better to have a large
> include file, say 20-40 kb with 15 user-defined functions, of which maybe 3 or 4
> are used on any given page, or to have each function in it's own file and
> include (disk access/read) them only as needed.
> 
> Is it faster/more efficient to read one large file or several smaller ones?
> It's a RS Linux server with a gig of memory.
> 
> I'm also looking at PHP Accelerator and such.  Do those store only in memory
> what the script needs, or does it include all that you require or include in, as
> well?

With sufficient ram, the OS will likely cache a lot of the file reads
anyway, so with files that small it shouldn't make a whole lot of
difference.

But like I always say, the best way to know is to try it both ways and
benchmark it.


-- 
Greg Donald
Zend Certified Engineer
http://gdconsultants.com/
http://destiney.com/

-- 
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php


[Index of Archives]     [PHP Home]     [Apache Users]     [PHP on Windows]     [Kernel Newbies]     [PHP Install]     [PHP Classes]     [Pear]     [Postgresql]     [Postgresql PHP]     [PHP on Windows]     [PHP Database Programming]     [PHP SOAP]

  Powered by Linux