> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> MySQL's table locking during update pretty much make sure that >> performance will degrade under heavy load with many connections. >> > It's not actually as bad as you think. With a table like this, the > table locking actually has a very minimal effect on it. > > In any case, I'm not arguing that using a database would perform better > than using msession. I'm simply arguing that it would be good to have > the built-in session management support databases. It might also be > advantageous to add msession support to the core session support. I think my position on msession is misunderstood. Of course *I* like it because *I* wrote it, however, if I had it to do over again, I probably wouldn't do it the way I did, and I would have more reservations about submiting it to the group. Participation in this group has certainly been a mixed bag. When all is said and done, the reason I wrote msession still exists. There is a need for something which links multiple PHP systems together. Databases incur a disk I/O, the same as the file based session module, so maximums are controled by the disk subsystem. Msession is most similar to the mod_mm session manager, it has no disk I/O, although it does have network I/O latency. I don't know what *the* answer is. I have contributed msession as *an* answer. Idealy, there would be a "mod_net" which performs similarly to the session extension portion of msession.
-- PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
