-- Philip G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (on Sunday, 11 May 2008, 10:59 PM -0500): > I'm glad to hear things have improved. Now, don't get me wrong, I > didn't say I was sold on the subject, but I did show some evidence > showing the opposite being true. I would love to see an official Zend > paper on this. > > Autoloading vs direct includes is a large debate, even at work, which > I would love to see some hard supporting facts on the subject. As for > creating my own test suites? I'm just too busy to be able to give it > the proper attention that is required. So, I rely on the breakdown > from others. Mike's blog was the last thing I herd on the subject (and > was backed up by other testimonials I've read), so I tended to > gravitate towards his findings. In a way, Matthew even validated what > Mike had discovered.
I did, but we had to develop our own code to benchmark, as this developer did not publish his methodology. We developed our code because we wanted to either verify or invalidate his results. As it was, the situation was not terribly grave -- but we may have been testing differently than he had. One thing you should always keep in mind when you see publications such as these: do they provide a way for others to independently verify the results? If they don't, you should be skeptical and take them with a grain of salt. Why? Because it could be a matter of a poorly configured environment, OS issues (for instance, Mac is notorious for I/O throughput issues), or even poor test suite setup. But you can never be sure, because there is no way to check. I've posted a comment on the entry asking for this information and also asking him to re-run the tests with a newer ZF release (the author provides no means for contact, and, in fact, comments appear to be moderated); hopefully we can get a better idea of the current state of affairs from this. > However, Matthew did said things have improved since then -- great! > I'd love to see some evidence. (Logically, I can completely > understand, but logic is just that: logic not fact) Right -- apply that same rigorousness when reviewing benchmarks as well. :-) > Until the Zend paper is released, all we have to fall back on is Mike's > findings, which show the opposite. And, as I noted, even these findings are a bit suspect, as nobody can independently verify or invalidate them. > On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Matthew Ratzloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Although I was (like you) under the impression that opcode caches couldn't > cache autoloaded classes, I'm more inclined to trust Matthew and Ralph > than a blog post from last December that doesn't have the test suite > available for download. Five months is a long time in Zend Framework > time; since then, there have been three releases: 1.0.4, 1.5.0, and 1.5.1. > > This belief is common among PHP developers, though, so if it isn't the > case I'd like to know about it. Needless to say, I'm looking forward to > Zend's paper on the subject. > > -Matt > > On Sun, May 11, 2008 10:25 am, Philip G wrote: > > > Try several months: > > http://blog.digitalstruct.com/2007/12/23/ > zend-framework-performance-zend_loader/ > > http://blog.digitalstruct.com/2007/12/24/accelerators-revisited/ > > > > I'd be quite curious to see if things have changed. > > > > > > -- > Philip > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.gpcentre.net/ -- Matthew Weier O'Phinney Software Architect | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Zend - The PHP Company | http://www.zend.com/
