Stas Malyshev wrote:
The TS model in php should be redesigned in the next major version,
instead of simply giving it up.
Again, I'd not mind seeing this redesign, but do we have somebody who's
actually going to do that?
Ignoring the problem of 'someone to do it', in this age of multi-core
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Stas Malyshev wrote:
The TS model in php should be redesigned in the next major version,
instead of simply giving it up.
Again, I'd not mind seeing this redesign, but do we have somebody who's
actually going to do
-Original Message-
From: Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 8:10 AM
To: Stas Malyshev
Cc: Zeev Suraski; PHP internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] ZTS - why are you using it?
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com
On 29/01/2013 09:03, Zeev Suraski wrote:
I’m creating a new one,
based on the apparent level of interest in ZTS. This isn’t an RFC to
remove ZTS by any stretch, but I **am** a bit confused about why people are
still using ZTS.
Personally because runkit sandbox requires it, amongst other
Hi Guys,
As a heavy user of ZTS in multi threaded C/C++ applications, here are my $0.02.
Removing ZTS would be a bad idea for all those custom multi-threaded
applications out there that allow some form of internal/embedded PHP scripting.
These applications are not web-servers but do make use
-Original Message-
From: Bas van Beek [mailto:b...@tobin.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 2:29 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: Pierre Joye; Stas Malyshev; PHP internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] ZTS - why are you using it?
Hi Guys,
As a heavy user of ZTS in multi threaded C/C
Op 30 jan. 2013, om 13:42 heeft Zeev Suraski het volgende geschreven:
-Original Message-
From: Bas van Beek [mailto:b...@tobin.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 2:29 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: Pierre Joye; Stas Malyshev; PHP internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] ZTS - why are you using
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
In case I wasn't sufficiently clear, I'm talking about putting PHP inside
a *multithreaded web server*, not being a good idea.
It makes no sense where FPM is supported, or little sense.
The use case you
specify is exactly
I didn’t want to hijack the Optimizer+ thread so I’m creating a new one,
based on the apparent level of interest in ZTS. This isn’t an RFC to
remove ZTS by any stretch, but I **am** a bit confused about why people are
still using ZTS.
A bit of background. I started the ZTS project (based on
On 2013/1/29 17:03, Zeev Suraski wrote:
I didn’t want to hijack the Optimizer+ thread so I’m creating a new one,
based on the apparent level of interest in ZTS. This isn’t an RFC to
remove ZTS by any stretch, but I **am** a bit confused about why people are
still using ZTS.
A bit of
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
Which brings me to the subject of this mail – why are you using ZTS PHP
instead of single threaded PHP? The reasons not to use it are few but
fairly major – it’s significantly slower than the non-ZTS PHP, and it’s
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
I didn’t want to hijack the Optimizer+ thread so I’m creating a new one,
based on the apparent level of interest in ZTS. This isn’t an RFC to
remove ZTS by any stretch, but I **am** a bit confused about why people are
still
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Laruence larue...@php.net wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
I didn’t want to hijack the Optimizer+ thread so I’m creating a new one,
based on the apparent level of interest in ZTS. This isn’t an RFC to
remove ZTS by any
Hey:
It's not we choose ZTS, it is there are many users run with them (IIS,
Apache+workers, and pthreads extension require it)
For pthreads I can understand it, but why would users be using it on
IIS/Apache instead of using FastCGI? FastCGI is both faster and more
robust. Is it a matter of
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
Hey:
It's not we choose ZTS, it is there are many users run with them (IIS,
Apache+workers, and pthreads extension require it)
For pthreads I can understand it, but why would users be using it on
IIS/Apache instead of using
hi Zeev,
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
Which brings me to the subject of this mail – why are you using ZTS PHP
instead of single threaded PHP? The reasons not to use it are few but
fairly major – it’s significantly slower than the non-ZTS PHP, and it’s
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
The other main reason from my side to keep ZTS is Windows. Windows
cannot perform well using process based SAPI. It won't match linux as
long as it runs within a webserver using a process based
implementation (but CLI
On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 11:03 +0200, Zeev Suraski wrote:
I didn’t want to hijack the Optimizer+ thread so I’m creating a new one,
based on the apparent level of interest in ZTS. This isn’t an RFC to
remove ZTS by any stretch, but I **am** a bit confused about why people are
still using ZTS.
I
The other main reason from my side to keep ZTS is Windows. Windows
cannot
perform well using process based SAPI.
Windows actually works quite well with FastCGI. So well Microsoft even
created their own version for IIS. It's outperforming the ISAPI module by
a wide margin.
Other than
On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 12:05 +0100, Johannes Schlüter wrote:
exploit some of the bugs (?php new stdclass; ?, or any other internal
class, was all that was needed for one of the bugs) there were way too
few reports.
Ah, that specific bug was 5.4-only, back then 5.4 was quite new. But
there were
On Jan 29, 2013 12:10 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
The other main reason from my side to keep ZTS is Windows. Windows
cannot
perform well using process based SAPI.
Windows actually works quite well with FastCGI. So well Microsoft even
created their own version for IIS. It's
(*) Apache actually does have a good FastCGI implementation available in
Zend Server for Windows (including the free CE version). Using it is
faster and more reliable than using mod_php on Windows.
Absolute right. Zend Server works great on Windows with FastCGI.
Using it since 3 years and
On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 12:15 +0100, Pierre Joye wrote:
Laziness and design mistake. Everything on windows (AD,IIS, asp.net,
etc)
uses thread.
Well, most other things don't create shared-nothing environments like
PHP does. ASP, not only due to the Application object, for instance
isn't
hi,
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Johannes Schlüter
johan...@schlueters.de wrote:
On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 12:15 +0100, Pierre Joye wrote:
Laziness and design mistake. Everything on windows (AD,IIS, asp.net,
etc)
uses thread.
Well, most other things don't create shared-nothing
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
Laziness and design mistake. Everything on windows (AD,IIS, asp.net, etc)
uses thread.
And no, nuts is not faster. I am not talking about PHP zts, but in
general.
Of course everything that is Windows native uses threads,
On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 12:49 +0100, Pierre Joye wrote:
That is true. Many modern compilers and environments provide better
support for thread local storages
Exactly, or more exactly CRTs (libc, crt and the likes)
That's what I called environment - some of these things depend on
-Original Message-
From: Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 1:49 PM
To: Johannes Schlüter
Cc: Zeev Suraski; PHP internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] ZTS - why are you using it?
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Johannes Schlüter
johan
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 29, 2013 12:10 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
The other main reason from my side to keep ZTS is Windows. Windows
cannot
perform well using process based SAPI.
Windows actually works quite well
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Johannes Schlüter
johan...@schlueters.de wrote:
There were mysqli threading bugs, the last one of those actually had
been engine bugs which affected other extensions, too. See i.e.
http://news.php.net/php.internals/59353
Such bugs identified a year after the
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
It is inter process sharing and is very expensive, nothing to compare
with shared
memory within a single process, accross many threads.
What are you basing that assertion on? Shared memory should have
identical performance
-Original Message-
From: Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:19 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: Johannes Schlüter; PHP internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] ZTS - why are you using it?
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: Johannes Schlüter; PHP internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] ZTS - why are you using it?
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
It is inter process sharing and is very expensive, nothing to compare
with shared
memory within a single process
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:19 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: Johannes Schlüter; PHP internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] ZTS - why are you using
On 01/29/2013 05:18 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
As far as I remember, we already do that for a couple of web servers.
And in the long run, I will rather tell not to use FastCGI for
dedicated hosting and the likes. That being said, I also met many ISPs
which are not happy with the all-fastcgi,
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com wrote:
Those ISPs are probably stuck in old fastcgi-land and haven't figured
out FPM's ondemand pooling. If you idle out the ondemand children
somewhat quickly you can support a lot of vhosts without using much
memory since
-Original Message-
From: Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 3:19 PM
To: Zeev Suraski
Cc: Johannes Schlüter; PHP internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] ZTS - why are you using it?
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote
-Original Message-
From: Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 3:37 PM
To: Rasmus Lerdorf
Cc: PHP internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] ZTS - why are you using it?
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf ras...@lerdorf.com
wrote:
Those
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Pierre Joye [mailto:pierre@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 3:37 PM
To: Rasmus Lerdorf
Cc: PHP internals
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] ZTS - why are you using it?
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013
On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 14:18 +0100, Pierre Joye wrote:
As far as I remember, we already do that for a couple of web servers.
And in the long run, I will rather tell not to use FastCGI for
dedicated hosting and the likes. That being said, I also met many ISPs
which are not happy with the
On Tue, 29 Jan 2013, Zeev Suraski wrote:
Which brings me to the subject of this mail – why are you using ZTS
PHP instead of single threaded PHP? The reasons not to use it are few
but fairly major – it’s significantly slower than the non-ZTS PHP, and
it’s significantly less robust in the
On 29/01/13 15:21, Pierre Joye wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
On Windows with impersonation you're actually in a better situation than
you are in Linux. You could hold a small pool of processes and handle as
many different users as you'd like.
Works
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Ángel González keis...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/01/13 15:21, Pierre Joye wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
On Windows with impersonation you're actually in a better situation than
you are in Linux. You could hold a small
On 29 בינו 2013, at 17:45, Ángel González keis...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/01/13 15:21, Pierre Joye wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Zeev Suraski z...@zend.com wrote:
On Windows with impersonation you're actually in a better situation than
you are in Linux. You could hold a small pool
On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 13:13 +0100, Pierre Joye wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Johannes Schlüter
johan...@schlueters.de wrote:
There were mysqli threading bugs, the last one of those actually had
been engine bugs which affected other extensions, too. See i.e.
On Jan 29, 2013 9:42 PM, Johannes Schlüter johan...@schlueters.de wrote:
On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 13:13 +0100, Pierre Joye wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Johannes Schlüter
So at least on my Linux box there is an issue around the usage of
setlocale(). Gues this won't show on Windows
Hi!
There are situations where FPM/FCGI are not appropriate, or the server
used does not support NTS (Apache windows for example, when fcgi is
not an option).
Why Apache can't use FCGI? There's no proper driver os something in
Apache architecture prevents it from using FCGI?
No. My idea is
Hi!
Of course an opcode cache isn't shred-nothing either, and maybe sharing
opcodes within a process is faster than doing this in shared memory.
I don't think so. IIRC main time is spent of two things: building
runtime structures from storage formats (because we mess with our
structures in
Hi!
Python, for example, is thread safe by default. Extensions developers
Doesn't Python have global engine lock?
It was and still is a lazy and design mistake to have focused on
FastCGI to support PHP on IIS more easily, while everything else in
this stack uses what the whole OS stack
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:49 AM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
Hi!
There are situations where FPM/FCGI are not appropriate, or the server
used does not support NTS (Apache windows for example, when fcgi is
not an option).
Why Apache can't use FCGI? There's no proper driver os
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
Hi!
Python, for example, is thread safe by default. Extensions developers
Doesn't Python have global engine lock?
Right, but they do not give up thread safety. See Thread State and
the Global Interpreter Lock in:
On 01/30/2013 07:09 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Stas Malyshev
smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
Hi!
Python, for example, is thread safe by default. Extensions developers
Doesn't Python have global engine lock?
Right, but they do not give up thread safety. See Thread
Hi!
I did not check latest ICU code base but we never had any issues in
intl in ZTS. However you are right, since 5.3.0 most TS issues were in
One of them has to do with number formatting, so if you have a number of
apps that use different locale settings on the same server, which have
hi,
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@sugarcrm.com wrote:
Hi!
I did not check latest ICU code base but we never had any issues in
intl in ZTS. However you are right, since 5.3.0 most TS issues were in
One of them has to do with number formatting, so if you have a
53 matches
Mail list logo
