Re: [PHP-DEV] Apache2 and PHP CVS from today
I completely understand your point. Some people feel they need those extra 10% for production machines. But are you actually planning on running Apache 2 on a heavily loaded production machine? If yes, I think it might still be a bit early to abandon 1.3.x. If no and you just want to mess around with it and test it, then you can use apxs for a while ;) Andi At 05:30 PM 2/25/2002 -0800, August wrote: Hey Yasuo, Could you give a complete url to the DSO recommendation? Most instructions on creating a high performance version of php recommend static compiles. Thanks... - AZ -Original Message- From: Yasuo Ohgaki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] August wrote: Sebastian wrote: if PHP's --with-apache option needs tweaking. Why don't you use DSO anyhow? It's the preferred method. Why in the world is DSO the preferred method? Is this documented somewhere? In apache document. I find DSO useful for testing and development, but for deployment it makes little sense to be using DSO, the cost of 60 seconds of compile is negligible when looking at something that will be installed for timeframes exceeding a day or two, especially for larger server farms. The benefit of DSO is loading modules without compile whole apache. For instance, I would like to use info or status module when I have problem with my web servers, but I don't want to enable them all the time. -- Yasuo Ohgaki _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP-DEV] Apache2 and PHP CVS from today
You've pretty much nailed the plan on the head here. Not even close to running Apache 2 on a production machine, stability/familiarity trumps that thought any day. Was planning on developing against Apache 2 DSO style, and simultaneously trying to nudge things along on the static build side so that in a few months would have the option of rolling out statically when it mattered. Thought Apache beta might be a good point to start doing that. - August -Original Message- From: Andi Gutmans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 9:23 AM To: August; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Apache2 and PHP CVS from today I completely understand your point. Some people feel they need those extra 10% for production machines. But are you actually planning on running Apache 2 on a heavily loaded production machine? If yes, I think it might still be a bit early to abandon 1.3.x. If no and you just want to mess around with it and test it, then you can use apxs for a while ;) Andi At 05:30 PM 2/25/2002 -0800, August wrote: Hey Yasuo, Could you give a complete url to the DSO recommendation? Most instructions on creating a high performance version of php recommend static compiles. Thanks... - AZ -Original Message- From: Yasuo Ohgaki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] August wrote: Sebastian wrote: if PHP's --with-apache option needs tweaking. Why don't you use DSO anyhow? It's the preferred method. Why in the world is DSO the preferred method? Is this documented somewhere? In apache document. I find DSO useful for testing and development, but for deployment it makes little sense to be using DSO, the cost of 60 seconds of compile is negligible when looking at something that will be installed for timeframes exceeding a day or two, especially for larger server farms. The benefit of DSO is loading modules without compile whole apache. For instance, I would like to use info or status module when I have problem with my web servers, but I don't want to enable them all the time. -- Yasuo Ohgaki _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Apache2 and PHP CVS from today
August wrote: I have a build framework that I use extremely frequently, and I don't believe much has changed with it. Has the procedure changed for statically compiling php with apache? I haven't seen any documentation of it. I don't know if httpd-2.0 still supports statically compiled modules or if PHP's --with-apache option needs tweaking. Why don't you use DSO anyhow? It's the preferred method. -- Sebastian Bergmann http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ http://phpOpenTracker.de/ Did I help you? Consider a gift: http://wishlist.sebastian-bergmann.de/ -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Apache2 and PHP CVS from today
Jim wrote: --with-apache is specific to apache1. you have to use --with-apxs2 to build against apache2. Apxs normally builds DSO versions of php. Under apache, DSO stands for Dynamic Shared Object support, and there are some important differences between dso and static compiles, primarily perhaps performance and administration. Statically linking stuff can significantly reduce administration headaches. Let's say you have a 15 server web farm and want to roll out a new, tested combination of Apache/PHP and some other modules. By statically compiling them in, you can reduce the rollout to pretty much one file, the httpd binary. If the directory it is in changes it is not the end of the world. Parallel installs don't have to worry about asymmetric upgrades of shared libs, etc. On a 15 server farm, a 10% performance win equals a server or two. That is $3000-6000 in capital costs, and then another $2,000 in rackspace/power costs. While benchmarks are notoriously hard to get right, why not try a simple ab domain/hello.php comparing static vs DSO compiles? You might see something like a 40% improvement with the static compile. It's a few seconds of compile time for some potential real world savings. Love to see some better numbers on this of course, but in my experience going the static route results in a measurable performance win. As far as I know httpd2 still allows static modules. - August -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Apache2 and PHP CVS from today
Sebastian wrote: I don't know if httpd-2.0 still supports statically compiled modules or if PHP's --with-apache option needs tweaking. Why don't you use DSO anyhow? It's the preferred method. Why in the world is DSO the preferred method? Is this documented somewhere? I find DSO useful for testing and development, but for deployment it makes little sense to be using DSO, the cost of 60 seconds of compile is negligible when looking at something that will be installed for timeframes exceeding a day or two, especially for larger server farms. - August -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Apache2 and PHP CVS from today
August wrote: Sebastian wrote: I don't know if httpd-2.0 still supports statically compiled modules or if PHP's --with-apache option needs tweaking. Why don't you use DSO anyhow? It's the preferred method. Why in the world is DSO the preferred method? Is this documented somewhere? In apache document. I find DSO useful for testing and development, but for deployment it makes little sense to be using DSO, the cost of 60 seconds of compile is negligible when looking at something that will be installed for timeframes exceeding a day or two, especially for larger server farms. The benefit of DSO is loading modules without compile whole apache. For instance, I would like to use info or status module when I have problem with my web servers, but I don't want to enable them all the time. -- Yasuo Ohgaki -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Apache2 and PHP CVS from today
At 09:51 AM 2/26/2002 +0900, Yasuo Ohgaki wrote: August wrote: I find DSO useful for testing and development, but for deployment it makes little sense to be using DSO, the cost of 60 seconds of compile is negligible when looking at something that will be installed for timeframes exceeding a day or two, especially for larger server farms. The benefit of DSO is loading modules without compile whole apache. For instance, I would like to use info or status module when I have problem with my web servers, but I don't want to enable them all the time. we (I think august and i think the same, sorry dude if I'm mistaken :) :) ) understand the DSO concept *and* your point. Nonetheless, when you know you're gonna use php extensively, why bother a few more minutes of compilation and lose 40% of performance. Static build is the way to go in those cases. On other situations, i agree DSO is a good way (eg info and status you mentioned). I have in charge today a few million users (large web portal here :) ), and let me tell ya : statically built-in IS the way to go. We have seen major drawbacks with DSO. I'm not really sure why though since the module is loaded into memory at Apache startup BUT it definitely is less performant than when it's built in. (i wouldn't say 40% though but even 10% is huge). I'd really like to try out apache 2 and php but I really can't compile it (see an early mail). I know i've asked twice before but has ANYONE succeeded in compiling apache 2 and php in a STATIC BUILD (not --with-apxs but --with-apache) ? Thanks to answer me (privately if you don't want to bother the list). Later, take care -- Mark Villemade Hosting Services Technical Manager MultiMania / Lycos (int) +33 1 53 27 24 05 -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Apache2 and PHP CVS from today
August [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As far as I know httpd2 still allows static modules. yes, but the --with-apache option for php4 tries to compile a static version of php4 for apache 1.x. maybe someone will create a --with-apache2 option that allows compiling a static version of php4 for apache 2.x. until that happens, the only way to compile php4 with apache2 is to use --with-apxs2, which compiles php4 as a dso. the fact that --with-apache does not work with apache 2.x is not a bug. the --with-apache option is specific to the sapi module for apache 1.x. the sapi module for apache 2.x is a different beast altogether. (in the meantime, it would be nice if someone made it so that the --with-apxs and --with-apache options errored out if someone tried to use them in conjunction with apache 2.x.) jim -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP-DEV] Apache2 and PHP CVS from today
Hey Yasuo, Could you give a complete url to the DSO recommendation? Most instructions on creating a high performance version of php recommend static compiles. Thanks... - AZ -Original Message- From: Yasuo Ohgaki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] August wrote: Sebastian wrote: if PHP's --with-apache option needs tweaking. Why don't you use DSO anyhow? It's the preferred method. Why in the world is DSO the preferred method? Is this documented somewhere? In apache document. I find DSO useful for testing and development, but for deployment it makes little sense to be using DSO, the cost of 60 seconds of compile is negligible when looking at something that will be installed for timeframes exceeding a day or two, especially for larger server farms. The benefit of DSO is loading modules without compile whole apache. For instance, I would like to use info or status module when I have problem with my web servers, but I don't want to enable them all the time. -- Yasuo Ohgaki _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Apache2 and PHP CVS from today
Jim wrote: the fact that --with-apache does not work with apache 2.x is not a bug. I see the inability to compile a static version of php for apache as the bug. Not too concerned with the semantics of the command. My experience may be abnormal, but for production work, static compiles seem a must. I'll agree with Chand on this one, you'd think the performance hit would only be on server startup, but there appear to be noticeable differences beyond that. Someone should take a look at that DSO recommendation that's been brought up a couple of times and add a note that for production stuff, going static may be worth the extra compile time. - August -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Apache2 and PHP CVS from today
August wrote: Please give a complete url. The apache dso docs just describe dso. Most instructions on creating a high performance version of php recommend static compiles for good reason. Info and status are not php. They have very different usage patterns (used much less frequently). And I think you'd find the performance difference between apache with status and info and without negligible. I have tested every single apache option with respect to speed and memory bloat, and those two are tiny. - AZ It's just in my memory. (My memory can be _wrong_ though ;) There should be doc/file somewhere that recommeds DSO since it's a most flexible to configure. Recommendatation is recommendation, you don't have to follow if you don't like. Recommendation can be a personal opinion also even if it's explicitly written in a doc ;) -- Yasuo Ohgaki _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Apache2 and PHP CVS from today
I have set up dozens of production servers in the past couple of years and not a single one of them is running the static version. If there are issues with the DSO, then file a bug report on that so we can fix it. -Rasmus On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, August wrote: Jim wrote: the fact that --with-apache does not work with apache 2.x is not a bug. I see the inability to compile a static version of php for apache as the bug. Not too concerned with the semantics of the command. My experience may be abnormal, but for production work, static compiles seem a must. I'll agree with Chand on this one, you'd think the performance hit would only be on server startup, but there appear to be noticeable differences beyond that. Someone should take a look at that DSO recommendation that's been brought up a couple of times and add a note that for production stuff, going static may be worth the extra compile time. - August -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Apache2 and PHP CVS from today
Sebastian, I've been tracking this reasonably closely. [php4-200202242100]# ./configure --with-apache=../httpd-2.0.32 Configuring SAPI modules checking for AOLserver support... no checking for Apache module support via DSO through APXS... no checking for Apache module support... no configure: error: Invalid Apache directory - unable to find httpd.h under /root/httpd-2.0.32 Using a 200202242100 snap of php. This is on a clean install of RedHat 7.2 2.4.9-21smp. I have a build framework that I use extremely frequently, and I don't believe much has changed with it. Has the procedure changed for statically compiling php with apache? I haven't seen any documentation of it. - August -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Apache2 and PHP CVS from today
At 08:14 AM 2/23/2002 +0100, Sebastian Bergmann wrote: August wrote: There's been a bit of traffic on the apache dev list about this as well, most of it indicating the problem lies on the PHP side of things... This is something I've been tracking for a while, waiting for the Apache beta (which is pretty close to their final) before really worrying about the php support. Now that the beta is here would be great to see php getting solid on Apache. I have encountered no problems installing Apache2 and PHP 4, both from current CVS, two days ago. are you sure you've tried compiling it as a built-in module in Apache? If so, then i guess all the troubles i've detailed in my mail have been solved. But i hardly believe it since they seemed pretty tough to deal with on such a short time. But who knows :) I'll check it out :) Later -- Sebastian Bergmann http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ http://phpOpenTracker.de/ Did I help you? Consider a gift: http://wishlist.sebastian-bergmann.de/ -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php -- Chand Joey : You didn't cry when bambi's mother died ? Chand :Yes it was very sad when the guy stopped drawing the deer. -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Apache2 and PHP CVS from today
Chand wrote: are you sure you've tried compiling it as a built-in module in Apache? $ cd /usr/src/httpd-2.0 $ ./configure --enable-so --enable-mods-shared=ALL $ make $ make install $ cd /usr/src/php4 $ ./configure --with-apxs2=/usr/local/apache2/bin/apxs $ make $ make install ... works just fine here, Sebastian -- Sebastian Bergmann http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ http://phpOpenTracker.de/ Did I help you? Consider a gift: http://wishlist.sebastian-bergmann.de/ -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Apache2 and PHP CVS from today
At 05:52 PM 2/23/2002 +0100, Sebastian Bergmann wrote: Chand wrote: are you sure you've tried compiling it as a built-in module in Apache? $ cd /usr/src/httpd-2.0 $ ./configure --enable-so --enable-mods-shared=ALL $ make $ make install $ cd /usr/src/php4 $ ./configure --with-apxs2=/usr/local/apache2/bin/apxs $ make $ make install ... works just fine here, Sebastian ok this segfaults on my comp (linux 2.4.17), but my point was to try and build an httpd binary with php built in. What you do here is a module loaded at startup. not *Entirely* different but not quite the same anyway :) Configuring it would have to go this way : $ cd /usr/src/httpd-2.0 $ ./configure --enable-so --enable-mods-shared=ALL $ cd /usr/src/php4 $ ./configure --with-apache=../httpd-2.0 $ make $ make install $ cd /usr/src/httpd-2.0 $ ./configure [... All valid options you want] $ make $ make install If anyone got this working, I'm interested. I'll try again with the newest cvs version of both distributions. Later -- Sebastian Bergmann http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ http://phpOpenTracker.de/ Did I help you? Consider a gift: http://wishlist.sebastian-bergmann.de/ -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php -- Mark Villemade Hosting Services Technical Manager MultiMania / Lycos (int) +33 1 53 27 24 05 -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP-DEV] Apache2 and PHP CVS from today
There's been a bit of traffic on the apache dev list about this as well, most of it indicating the problem lies on the PHP side of things... This is something I've been tracking for a while, waiting for the Apache beta (which is pretty close to their final) before really worrying about the php support. Now that the beta is here would be great to see php getting solid on Apache. - August -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Apache2 and PHP CVS from today
At 01:06 PM 2/22/2002 -0800, August wrote: There's been a bit of traffic on the apache dev list about this as well, most of it indicating the problem lies on the PHP side of things... This is something I've been tracking for a while, waiting for the Apache beta (which is pretty close to their final) before really worrying about the php support. Now that the beta is here would be great to see php getting solid on Apache. hey, I've been trying to compile php latest cvs and apache latest cvs a few days back and i found out there are some first things to solve before being able to make any solid thing on php + Apache 2 Nota : this only happens if you try to compile built in in apache. Apxs works at compile but httpd segfaults when you launch it and have the LoadModule in httpd.conf. (didn't try and trace it cause I wanted to test php against apache 2.0 for performance since Apache 1.3.x is almost not fast enough for the load i need to handle) 1/ First thing would have to create a good configure script :) The one php's got last time i checked didn't link to all the needed libraries directories and didn't find apache 2 actually : after line 3697 some changes are to be done : # For Apache 2.0.x elif test -f $withval/src/include/httpd.h test -f $withval/src/lib/apr/include/apr_general.h ; then first line should get rid of the /src/ second line should be test -f $withval/srclib/apr/include/apr_general.h ; then there are some changes according to the same rules are to be applied in the next few lines and APACHE_INCLUDE has to have some extra stuff : original : APACHE_INCLUDE=-I$withval/src/include -I$withval/src/os/unix -I$withval/src/lib/apr/include i don't remember exactly but there has to be some other include to put such as -l$withval/srclib/apr-util/include 2/ change the constants that had their name changed (eg : NOT_FOUND doesn't exist anymore on apache 2. It was before a #define on HTTP_NOT_FOUND. That define (for backwards compatibility i guess) is no more on Apache 2, there are a bunch of other constants for the all the response codes in include/httpd.h) 3/ there are also whole structures which have changed their names (pool for example). This is a major pain in the ass cause the structures have changed names but also their structure has changed. This is gonna be harsh to solve but it's doable. I've stopped at that step last time I checked. I'm really looking forward to Apache 2.0 cause well it looks like a lot faster and i'd need that. Anyway, i'd also like PHP to work with it of course :) Hope those simple comments were worthy. Later -- Mark Villemade Hosting Services Technical Manager MultiMania / Lycos (int) +33 1 53 27 24 05 -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Apache2 and PHP CVS from today
August wrote: There's been a bit of traffic on the apache dev list about this as well, most of it indicating the problem lies on the PHP side of things... This is something I've been tracking for a while, waiting for the Apache beta (which is pretty close to their final) before really worrying about the php support. Now that the beta is here would be great to see php getting solid on Apache. I have encountered no problems installing Apache2 and PHP 4, both from current CVS, two days ago. -- Sebastian Bergmann http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ http://phpOpenTracker.de/ Did I help you? Consider a gift: http://wishlist.sebastian-bergmann.de/ -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP-DEV] Apache2 and PHP CVS from today.
I got Apache2 2.0.32 beta, compiled, installed, and happy. I got PHP from CVS last night and this afternoon. PHP Compiled and installed using the following configure: configure --with-apxs2=/usr/web/bin/apxs --with-ssl --with-jpeg --with-png also configure --with-apxs2=/usr/web/bin/apxs no dice. When starting apache *with* libphp4.so enabled, apache only starts a single process, waiting for connections, but does not write to a log-file, create a httpd.pid file, or offer any error messages. Is there something broke in the php cvs? With or without FilesMatch xxx makes no difference. Please advise. -- Austin Gonyou Systems Architect, CCNA Coremetrics, Inc. Phone: 512-698-7250 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is the part of a good shepherd to shear his flock, not to skin it. Latin Proverb -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
