On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Robert Cummings <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote: > On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 10:24 -0700, David Park wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > I currently run a phpBB site using phpBB v. 2.0.22 and PHP4. We'd like > to > > install either APC or eaccelerator to speed up the site's performance. > I'm > > not sure whether we should choose APC or eaccelerator since I'm a newbie > to > > PHP caching. > > > > Which do you think is better - APC or eacclerator? Here are some > criteria > > that I'd like to use in evaluating APC vs. eacclerator: 1) compatibility, > 2) > > stability and 3) speed. > > > > Some older posts on the net (from 2006) complained about > incompatibilities > > between APC/eacclerator and phpBB and about crashes of APC/eacclerator. > I'm > > hoping that these problems have been cleared up by now. > > Many years ago now I was using PHPAccelerator... when it stopped being > updated I made the switch. At that time I checked out both APC and > eaccelerator and found eaccelerator to be the faster for my needs. > Recently, and I don't recall the link, I read something that indicated > eaccelerator is faster than APC. Mileage may vary though depending on > individual usage patterns. Either way, I'd say they are probably fairly > interchangeable. i think i read this recently too, because we use eac at work (i was scoping it out). ive used only apc in that past myself. after reading around a little a couple of weeks back, and poking around in the eac source, it looks like eac is pretty feature rich, and possibly faster at this point. however, i suspect, with the growing popularity of apc, the tide will turn at some point and apc will be the best opcode caching solution. -nathan
