On Sep 18, 2013, at 14:26, Haluk Karamete <halukkaramete@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I recommend OPCache, which is already included in PHP 5.5. > > Camilo, > I'm just curious about the disadvantageous aspects of OPcache. > > My logic says there must be some issues with it otherwise it would have come already enabled. > > Sent from iPhone > > > On Sep 18, 2013, at 2:20 AM, Camilo Sperberg <unreal4u@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> On Sep 18, 2013, at 09:38, Negin Nickparsa <nickparsa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Thank you Sebastian..actually I will already have one if qualified for the >>> job. Yes, and I may fail to handle it that's why I asked for guidance. >>> I wanted some tidbits to start over. I have searched through yslow, >>> HTTtrack and others. >>> I have searched through php list in my email too before asking this >>> question. it is kind of beneficial for all people and not has been asked >>> directly. >>> >>> >>> Sincerely >>> Negin Nickparsa >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Sebastian Krebs <krebs.seb@xxxxxxxxx>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2013/9/18 Negin Nickparsa <nickparsa@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>>> In general, what are the best ways to handle high traffic websites? >>>>> >>>>> VPS(clouds)? >>>>> web analyzers? >>>>> dedicated servers? >>>>> distributed memory cache? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes :) >>>> >>>> But seriously: That is a topic most of us spent much time to get into it. >>>> You can explain it with a bunch of buzzwords. Additional, how do you define >>>> "high traffic websites"? Do you already _have_ such a site? Or do you >>>> _want_ it? It's important, because I've seen it far too often, that >>>> projects spent too much effort in their "high traffic infrastructure" and >>>> at the end it wasn't that high traffic ;) I wont say, that you cannot be >>>> successfull, but you should start with an effort you can handle. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Sebastian >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sincerely >>>>> Negin Nickparsa >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> github.com/KingCrunch >>>> >> >> Your question is way too vague to be answered properly... My best guess would be that it depends severely on the type of website you have and how's the current implementation being well... implemented. >> >> Simply said: what works for Facebook may/will not work for linkedIn, twitter or Google, mainly because the type of search differs A LOT: facebook is about relations between people, twitter is about small pieces of data not mainly interconnected between each other, while Google is all about links and all type of content: from little pieces of information through whole Wikipedia. >> >> You could start by studying how varnish and redis/memcached works, you could study about how proxies work (nginx et al), CDNs and that kind of stuff, but if you want more specific answers, you could better ask specific question. >> >> In the PHP area, an opcode cache does the job very well and can accelerate the page load by several orders of magnitude, I recommend OPCache, which is already included in PHP 5.5. >> >> Greetings. >> >> >> -- >> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >> The original RFC states: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/optimizerplus The integration proposed for PHP 5.5.0 is mostly 'soft' integration. That means that there'll be no tight coupling between Optimizer+ and PHP; Those who wish to use another opcode cache will be able to do so, by not loading Optimizer+ and loading another opcode cache instead. As per the Suggested Roadmap above, we might want to review this decision in the future; There might be room for further performance or functionality gains from tighter integration; None are known at this point, and they're beyond the scope of this RFC. So that's why OPCache isn't enabled by default in PHP 5.5 Greetings. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
