On 24 Mar 2010, at 20:34, Rene Veerman wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:19 PM, Ashley Sheridan <a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk> 
> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 22:15 +0200, Rene Veerman wrote:
> Do you have any proof of this 'market trend'? I suggested a vote, but you 
> 'nay-sayed' it on the basis that you'd lose to people who couldn't possibly 
> know as much as you do.
> yes, twitter. facebook. the fact that a graphics upgrade would likely 
> increase business for the first ones on that popularity level to implement it.
> that's the proof i have for the market trend.

Again, improving the graphical content of a website has absolutely no effect on 
the performance of PHP. The additional time the page takes to load is all about 
network latency and how well you've arranged your static file serving.

> oh, and the fact "cloud computing" is becoming more and more of a buzzword in 
> the industry.

Cloud computing really doesn't mean what you think it means.

>> I wouldn't say I belonged to any particular camp at the start of this 
>> thread, but now, having read what my betters have said, I'm inclined to 
>> agree that threading isn't the magic wand that you seem to think it is. I 
>> personally see one of the largest sites in the world running on PHP without 
>> needing threading and without insulting half the list to attempt to get it.
>  you haven't offered me any description at all of how i'd solve the 
> large-scale realtime-web-app with existing techniques.

By "realtime-web-app" you mean something like Facebook? They use a combination 
of PHP, Memcached (and lots of it), MySQL and lots of other layers in-between 
to do what they do, and threaded PHP is not one of them.

> and if i explain why i'd need the features we've discussed, you dismiss it by 
> accepting a generalized "that can be solved with more sql servers" answer 
> that is admitted to increase costs in every department, including energy 
> consumption. on a non-linear scale btw.

What I'm getting here is that you want everything without paying for it. When 
it comes to scalability it's cheaper to achieve it by adding servers than it is 
to squeeze every last drop of performance out of a single box. The cost in 
development time alone to implement effective threading strategies would far 
outstrip the cost of adding a couple of servers and ensuring that your app is 

What you seem to be ignoring is the fact that these issues have been solved 
already, and the techniques that exist are more than adequate to build systems 
that scale as well as Facebook. What will it take to get you to accept that the 
way you want to skin the cat is exceedingly messy?



PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Reply via email to