Setting up a proper environment that at least a bit resembles what's used in production is a matter of professionalism, I don't think you will convince anyone here otherwise. It puts into questions author's technical abilities as a whole. You have no way to tell how this choice affected the benchmarks, you cannot assume that every framework was slowed down equally. For example if I/O was particularly slow, that would penalize frameworks with larger number of includes more than others, skewing the results. The fact that enabling APC showed adverse effects speak for itself, those tests were a joke and platform choice is just one indication of author's incompetence. You think it's just about having the environment constant, would you be able to tell which off-road car is better after testing both of the on the same highway? No.
Karol ekerazha wrote: > > Really, what you call "important" is insignificant too, for the same > reason I've already explained: every framework was running on Windows > Vista with Apache, the environment was the same and it was a fair > comparative. That "you should use IIS + FastCGI" argument is not relevant, > every framework didn't use "IIS + FastCGI". > > "PHP for IIS + FastCGI" would be another nice label though ;-) > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Framework-speed-shotout----question-tp19914787p20303039.html Sent from the Zend Framework mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
