Hello Zeev, Thursday, January 8, 2004, 10:40:19 PM, you wrote:
> At 23:34 08/01/2004, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: >>On January 08, 2004 04:11 pm, Zeev Suraski wrote: >> > Well, if we really get to save 100K as Ilia imagined, for a thousand >> > children, it's 100MB, and there are those with more. I doubt we can easily >> > get 100K though. >> >>'Freeing' 100k is not as difficult as it sounds in PHP 5 when you consider >>that 4 object files (filters.o 14460, ftp_fopen_wrapper.o 13616, info.o >>13868, streamsfuncs.o 13408) make up for more then 1/2. Add (url_scanner_ex.o >>12304, var.o 14616 image.o 11432,var_unserializer.o 5984) and you've reduced >>your php library/binary by 100k. > Hrm, but that's not interesting at all, since that's server-wide memory > that's shared across the children processes. Saving memory is only really > interesting if we save per-process memory. >>Even so you gain only a 100mb saving (1000 simultaneous apache processes, >>WOW) >>per server. Given that 100mb of ram is only about $10 (or less) it seems to >>me this would be a cheaper solution then having to pay a programmer >>($50/hour+) to recompile PHP with obscure options (to reduce memory >>footprint) on a variety of servers. I won't even go into the loss of >>functionality that maybe needed later. I couldn't agree more to what Ilia said. Also how do you count the apache eleohants in here? Wouldn't those people first drop some modules there? Or recompile their databases and drop some trigger languages or additional unused table handlers or other unused features? > We're talking about servers where you can add no further memory because > they're already maxed out. And they also use way more than 1,000 > simultaneous processes, so those *THEORETIC* 100K could translate into half > a gig, plenty of room to run additional processes. As far as i know the times where you want one big server for the inet are gone for years. Nowadays i'd go with some blades or 1U 19" chassis with slow cpus (lots of ram in case of java) and save lots of resources like power for example. Did i miss a revolution, are we back to big machines? Or are we speaking of the windows world where you cannot do anything else but working with big machines? But well the approach to not share the function table of buildin functions is something we should consider for php 5.1. Zeev do you think there's an easy way to write a wrapper around the hash functions so that we could hide the two hash table approach from the compiler/executor for example? marcus -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
