Yeah I agree with Dmitry. Disk-cache is not so much about local
performance, but about not requiring to open an HTTP connection for
fetching the WSDL if it's a remote URL. Actually I think people will
often want to use both. You don't want an apachectl restart to
require each process to refetch the WSDL file from remote (if you're
not using a local copy)
At 10:39 AM 4/18/2006, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
Note that in-memory cache is not shared between processes and/or threads, so
if we have 1000 PHP processes we will ask for WSDL files at least 1000 times
and also after each process restart. Also memory usage will very inefficient
in this case.
I think it is better to provide a chose to user use both, memory only, disk
only cahce or don't use cache at all, through configuration directive.
I am not agree to delete disk cache, especially because in-memory cache
wasn't tested enough.
And we need to disable in-memory cache by default for this release because
of the same reason.
Thanks. Dmitry.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:rasmus@lerdorf.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 8:58 PM
> To: Andrei Zmievski
> Cc: Dmitry Stogov; 'Uwe Schindler'; soap@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: Frequent crashes in multithreaded
> webserver since new WSDLcaching code in ext/soap
>
>
> Especially since the speedup of the disk-based cache vs.
> reparsing the
> wsdl is minimal. It really is quite slow.
>
> -Rasmus
>
> Andrei Zmievski wrote:
> > I agree that TTL for in-memory cache is a good idea. I also
> think that
> > in-memory cache should be the only type of cache we support
> (why have
> > two types of caches really).
> >
> > -Andrei
> >
> > On Apr 17, 2006, at 10:48 PM, Dmitry Stogov wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Andrei,
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Andrei Zmievski [mailto:andrei@gravitonic.com]
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 1:36 AM
> >>> To: Dmitry Stogov
> >>> Cc: 'Uwe Schindler'; 'Rasmus Lerdorf'; soap@lists.php.net
> >>> Subject: Re: Frequent crashes in multithreaded webserver
> >>> since new WSDLcaching code in ext/soap
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Andrei,
> >>>>
> >>>> I was agree with your patch only after 5.1.3 release.
> >>>> And I disagree with persistent WSDL by default at all.
> Especially
> >>>> without protection against huge memory usage.
> >>>
> >>> How huge is it really? We can put TTL on in-memory cache as well,
> >>> but I think that we should have only in-memory cache and
> not bother
> >>> with the
> >>> disk one anymore -- it's just too slow.
> >>
> >> Yes, we need some mechanism for cache expiration and
> invalidation. I
> >> see two big problems:
> >>
> >> 1) Now it is necessury to change PHP code to disable WSDL in-memory
> >> cache to
> >> reload changed WSDL. How to develop WSDL?
> >>
> >> 2) WEB hoster may have 1000 users, and how many memory
> will take 1000
> >> cached
> >> WSDL files?
> >>
> >> 3) On slow lines on-disk WSDL cache makes great speedup over direct
> >> request.
> >> Of course in-memory cache should operate faster.
> >>
> >> I suggest add some configuration directive to enable/disable
> >> in-memory cache. Or change existing ones to have disk/memory/off
> >> values.
> >>
> >>>> I hadn't time to look into you patch careful, and seems
> it wasn't
> >>>> tested enough. I looked into it today, found and fixed
> another bugs
> >>>> in addition to
> >>>> your fix. I cannot be sure that these are latest bugs
> >>> related to this
> >>>> patch.
> >>>
> >>> I know you fixed those bugs. There is at least one more
> remaining,
> >>> according to the bug #37083. I am fine with reverting the
> in-memory
> >>> cache (or at least disabling the cache_wsdl) parameter
> until after
> >>> 5.1.3.
> >>
> >> I think we can stay code in CVS but disable it by default. (Invert
> >> the behavior of "cache_wsdl" parameter.) Or we can use
> default value
> >> frim configuration directive. What do you think?
> >>
> >>>> Also for what reason you disabled disk cache? I re-enabled it.
> >>>
> >>> Because it's too slow?
> >>
> >> I prefer not to break working code, before making better one.
> >>
> >>> Do you have any ideas about the problem described in the last few
> >>> comments in the bug?
> >>
> >> I'll look.
> >>
> >> Thanks. Dmitry.
> >>
> >>> -Andrei
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> PHP Soap Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> >>> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--
PHP Soap Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
