php-windows Digest 26 Mar 2011 10:20:27 -0000 Issue 3931
Topics (messages 30546 through 30551):
Re: [PHP] Which versions of Apache will PHP 5.3.6 work with??
30546 by: Tommy Pham
30547 by: Toby Hart Dyke
30548 by: Pierre Joye
30549 by: Tommy Pham
30551 by: Pierre Joye
Re: [PHP] Re: [PHP-WIN] Re: [PHP] Which versions of Apache will PHP 5.3.6 work
with??
30550 by: Sharl.Jimh.Tsin
Administrivia:
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
php-windows-digest-subscr...@lists.php.net
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
php-windows-digest-unsubscr...@lists.php.net
To post to the list, e-mail:
php-wind...@lists.php.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Tommy Pham <tommy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Curtis Tammany <curtis.tamm...@urs.com>
> wrote:
>> Help!! I am in a Windows environment (XP SP3 for development and Server 2003
>> for production. I have to upgrade to PHP 5.3.6. It does not appear to work
>> with either Apache 2.2.11 or the new 2.2.17 from Apache Lounge. Apache will
>> run by itself but when PHP is installed, it adds:
>>
>> #BEGIN PHP INSTALLER EDITS - REMOVE ONLY ON UNINSTALL
>> PHPIniDir "C:\Program Files\PHP536\"
>> LoadModule php5_module "C:\Program Files\PHP536\php5apache2_2.dll"
>> #END PHP INSTALLER EDITS - REMOVE ONLY ON UNINSTALL
>>
>> Restarting Apache causes the following:
>>
>> httpd.exe - Application Error : The instruction at "0x0096c1bf" referenced
>> memory at "0x100058a8". The memory could not be "written".
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> Curtis
>>
>>
>>
>
> Curtis,
>
> IIRC, you can't run VC9 (Visual Studio 2008) binary with VC6 binary
> smoothly, which I believe where you got the official binary
> distributions, PHP and httpd, respectively. Here's the info from [1].
>
> There used to be a VC6 binary release for PHP v5.3.3 at
> windows.php.net but I don't see a VC6 build for v5.3 now. Any way,
> since you're using using Windows, why not just run it as FastCGI? It
> runs fine on Win2003 (x86), Win7 x64, Win08 (x86 & x64), and Win08r2.
> Are using a specific Apache module that's why you need to use httpd?
> If so, you could use the (non official) Apache Lounge's binary.
>
> "The windows binary is build with original sources from ASF (
> http://httpd.apache.org ) and contains the latest patches. It is build
> with the latest Windows® Platform SDK and Visual Studio C++ 2008 aka
> VC9, which have improvements in areas like Performance,
> MemoryManagement and Stability over the .msi binary from the ASF site
> which is build with VC6. LoadRunner (Load Testing Software Suite)
> shows that there are improvements in performance using Apache built
> with VC 2008. That performance gain can be affected by numerous
> factors (use of scripting language such as Perl, PHP, Python, etc…as
> well as the actual scripts themselves). LoadRunner testing does show a
> marked improvement for Apache compiled under VC 2008 in stability
> under rigorous condition.
>
> Minimum system required: Windows 7, Windows Server 2008 R2, Windows
> Vista, Windows Server 2008, Windows XPSP3 and Windows Server 2003 R2."
>
> Regards,
> Tommy
>
> [1] http://www.apachelounge.com/download/
>
argh.. didn't read it well >.> I was typing it while on the phone
:))... Anyway, if you don't need to use any Apache module, then go
with FastCGI.
Goodluck!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 3/25/2011 3:15 PM, somebody wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Tommy Pham<tommy...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Curtis Tammany<curtis.tamm...@urs.com> wrote:
Help!! I am in a Windows environment (XP SP3 for development and Server 2003
for production. I have to upgrade to PHP 5.3.6. It does not appear to work
with either Apache 2.2.11 or the new 2.2.17 from Apache Lounge. Apache will
run by itself but when PHP is installed, it adds:
#BEGIN PHP INSTALLER EDITS - REMOVE ONLY ON UNINSTALL
PHPIniDir "C:\Program Files\PHP536\"
LoadModule php5_module "C:\Program Files\PHP536\php5apache2_2.dll"
#END PHP INSTALLER EDITS - REMOVE ONLY ON UNINSTALL
Restarting Apache causes the following:
httpd.exe - Application Error : The instruction at "0x0096c1bf" referenced
memory at "0x100058a8". The memory could not be "written".
Thanks in advance,
Curtis
Try commenting out all the extensions. I'm using the Apache Lounge
binary, and running PHP as a module. IIRC it was the zip extension which
was causing the problem (I copied over an old php.ini). The zip
extension is now internal to PHP.
Toby
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Tommy Pham <tommy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There used to be a VC6 binary release for PHP v5.3.3 at
> windows.php.net but I don't see a VC6 build for v5.3 now. Any way,
> since you're using using Windows, why not just run it as FastCGI? It
> runs fine on Win2003 (x86), Win7 x64, Win08 (x86 & x64), and Win08r2.
Apache module works just fine and is in many situations much faster than fcgi.
> Are using a specific Apache module that's why you need to use httpd?
> If so, you could use the (non official) Apache Lounge's binary.
There are no official builds of Apache, but convenience builds.
Cheers,
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Tommy Pham <tommy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There used to be a VC6 binary release for PHP v5.3.3 at
>> windows.php.net but I don't see a VC6 build for v5.3 now. Any way,
>> since you're using using Windows, why not just run it as FastCGI? It
>> runs fine on Win2003 (x86), Win7 x64, Win08 (x86 & x64), and Win08r2.
>
> Apache module works just fine and is in many situations much faster than fcgi.
I've never tested the difference for performance. If that's the case,
any particular reason to stop support ISAPI for IIS then? or is
FastCGI faster than ISAPI for IIS? Prior to upgrading to PHP v5.3 and
Windows 64bit, I had faster initial response time from ISAPI. Now
with FastCGI, the initial response takes longer. As for performance
difference through repeated requests, I don't notice the difference
between ISAPI v5.2 and FastCGI v5.3.
>
>> Are using a specific Apache module that's why you need to use httpd?
>> If so, you could use the (non official) Apache Lounge's binary.
>
> There are no official builds of Apache, but convenience builds.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Pierre
>
> @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
>
I've meant official in the sense that one could download from the
official/mirror site. Thus it's more trust worthy, in terms of non
malicious code.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 1:47 AM, Tommy Pham <tommy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've never tested the difference for performance. If that's the case,
> any particular reason to stop support ISAPI for IIS then? or is
> FastCGI faster than ISAPI for IIS?
It is faster, however the ISAPI was not maintained and has issues. But
what is the relation with Apache?
> I've meant official in the sense that one could download from the
> official/mirror site. Thus it's more trust worthy, in terms of non
> malicious code.
The developers at apachelounge.com work with th Apache project. We
would not recommend to use it if we do not trust this project.
Cheers,
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Try third binary instead of official one.
Best regards,
Sharl.Jimh.Tsin (From China **Obviously Taiwan INCLUDED**)
2011/3/26 Tommy Pham <tommy...@gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Tommy Pham <tommy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There used to be a VC6 binary release for PHP v5.3.3 at
>>> windows.php.net but I don't see a VC6 build for v5.3 now. Any way,
>>> since you're using using Windows, why not just run it as FastCGI? It
>>> runs fine on Win2003 (x86), Win7 x64, Win08 (x86 & x64), and Win08r2.
>>
>> Apache module works just fine and is in many situations much faster than
>> fcgi.
>
> I've never tested the difference for performance. If that's the case,
> any particular reason to stop support ISAPI for IIS then? or is
> FastCGI faster than ISAPI for IIS? Prior to upgrading to PHP v5.3 and
> Windows 64bit, I had faster initial response time from ISAPI. Now
> with FastCGI, the initial response takes longer. As for performance
> difference through repeated requests, I don't notice the difference
> between ISAPI v5.2 and FastCGI v5.3.
>
>>
>>> Are using a specific Apache module that's why you need to use httpd?
>>> If so, you could use the (non official) Apache Lounge's binary.
>>
>> There are no official builds of Apache, but convenience builds.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> --
>> Pierre
>>
>> @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
>>
>
> I've meant official in the sense that one could download from the
> official/mirror site. Thus it's more trust worthy, in terms of non
> malicious code.
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--- End Message ---
