On 6/10/10 9:31 AM, Brian Moon wrote:
>> [gearman]
>> worker1.path = /path/to/worker1.php
>> worker1.pm = dynamic
>> worker1.pm.max_children = 10
>> worker1.pm.start_servers = 5
>>
>> worker2.path = /path/to/worker2.php
>> worker2.pm = dynamic
>> worker2.pm.max_children = 4
>> worker2.pm.start_serv
[gearman]
worker1.path = /path/to/worker1.php
worker1.pm = dynamic
worker1.pm.max_children = 10
worker1.pm.start_servers = 5
worker2.path = /path/to/worker2.php
worker2.pm = dynamic
worker2.pm.max_children = 4
worker2.pm.start_servers = 2
So, this is a proposed new entry in the ini format? I am
On 6/10/10 8:53 AM, Tjerk Anne Meesters wrote:
> All "fpm" workers would be called using the same function name (e.g.
> "runphp"). This allows you to reuse a gearmand instance for other
> workers too.
I don't think we would need to require that. Obviously you could build
your Gearman worker such
All "fpm" workers would be called using the same function name (e.g.
"runphp"). This allows you to reuse a gearmand instance for other
workers too.
The advantages of fpm vs gearman would be mostly performance (it uses
ping and requires an underlying layer on top of tcp/ip), followed by
dynamic spa
On 6/10/10 8:30 AM, Frederic Hardy wrote:
> On 06/10/2010 17:20, Brian Moon wrote:
>> The big difference is that different processes do different jobs in
>> Gearman. All PHP workers in fpm just run what ever code is handed to
>> them. How do you handle that?
> Threading ;) ?
Definitely not. Gearm
On 06/10/2010 17:20, Brian Moon wrote:
The big difference is that different processes do different jobs in
Gearman. All PHP workers in fpm just run what ever code is handed to
them. How do you handle that?
Threading ;) ?
On 6/10/10 9:56 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Has anybody thought about addi
The big difference is that different processes do different jobs in
Gearman. All PHP workers in fpm just run what ever code is handed to
them. How do you handle that?
Brian.
http://brian.moonspot.net/
On 6/10/10 9:56 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Has anybody thought about adding Gearman
Rasmus,
I can work on it if no one has it already.
Warm Regards,
Patrick
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Has anybody thought about adding Gearman support to the fpm sapi?
> Managing Gearman workers is pretty much identical to managing fastcgi
> workers, so it doesn't se
Has anybody thought about adding Gearman support to the fpm sapi?
Managing Gearman workers is pretty much identical to managing fastcgi
workers, so it doesn't seem like much of a stretch.
-Rasmus
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/un
