Am 02.09.2021 um 13:15 schrieb Kevin Lyda :
> Removing it completely would be ideal, however a number of people objected
> in the linked bug. And while it's not needed in modern Unix operating
> systems, it's not clear if Windows might benefit from this.
If I remember correctly it was about
On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 10:27 AM Kevin Lyda wrote:
> PHP has a stat cache which is... unfortunate. As noted in this bug from
> 2004[0] it causes a number of issues for PHP users and is irrelevant
> in modern operating systems. Heck, it's not even useful in OS's people
> might consider ancient at
On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 2:34 PM Christian Schneider
wrote:
> If I remember correctly it was about reducing the number of system calls. Is
> this no issue any more?
> Has a quick benchmark been done to see the positive / negative impact of the
> stat cache for a typical application?
In the
Thank you.
> Why is the number generator a parent class rather than an interface?
This is an implementation limitation. I could not find a way to define my
own object handler in interface.
As Nikita pointed out in a previous suggestion, the NumberGenerator now
uses php_random_ng_algo_user to
On Fri, Sep 3, 2021, at 8:55 AM, Go Kudo wrote:
> Thank you.
>
> > Why is the number generator a parent class rather than an interface?
>
> This is an implementation limitation. I could not find a way to define my
> own object handler in interface.
> As Nikita pointed out in a previous
My apologies. I had skipped one.
> And either way it needs more clarity about how you'd write one for reals.
Added a simple example comparing it to mt_rand. What do you think of this?
2021年9月3日(金) 3:26 Larry Garfield :
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2021, at 10:10 AM, Go Kudo wrote:
> > Hi Internals.
> >
>
On 03.09.2021 at 16:07, Kevin Lyda wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 2:34 PM Christian Schneider
> wrote:
>
>> If I remember correctly it was about reducing the number of system calls. Is
>> this no issue any more?
>> Has a quick benchmark been done to see the positive / negative impact of the
Am 03.09.2021 um 16:07 schrieb Kevin Lyda :
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 2:34 PM Christian Schneider
> wrote:
>> If I remember correctly it was about reducing the number of system calls. Is
>> this no issue any more?
>> Has a quick benchmark been done to see the positive / negative impact of the
>>
> I'm still unclear how I'd write my own NumberGenerator right now. I
mean, I can extend the class, but I don't have a sense for what I'd do with
it for non-testing/trivial implementations. You say it's using an internal
function to generate numbers, but in user space what would I do with that?
On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 4:08 PM Kevin Lyda wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 2:34 PM Christian Schneider
> wrote:
> > If I remember correctly it was about reducing the number of system
> calls. Is this no issue any more?
> > Has a quick benchmark been done to see the positive / negative impact of
Am 03.09.2021 um 17:23 schrieb Nikita Popov :
> Just to throw it out there: Maybe we should clear the stat cache when
> functions in the exec family are used? Even if we allow disabling the stat
> cache, I think we can easily avoid that particular footgun. And if calls to
> external binaries
Thanks nikita.
> ext/standard to ext/random. Why does it do this?
There are several reasons for this.
- The `random` extension name is already used by ext/standard and may
interfere with the build system.
- Due to the namespace rules for new extensions, it is inappropriate to
rename an
On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 5:10 PM Go Kudo wrote:
> Hi Internals.
>
> Expanded from the previous RFC and changed it to an RFC that organizes the
> whole PHP random number generator. Also, the target version has been
> changed to 8.2.
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rng_extension
>
On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 4:24 PM Nikita Popov wrote:
> Just to throw it out there: Maybe we should clear the stat cache when
> functions in the exec family are used? Even if we allow disabling the stat
> cache, I think we can easily avoid that particular footgun. And if calls to
> external
Am 03.09.2021 um 18:12 schrieb Kevin Lyda mailto:ke...@lyda.ie>>:
> To run this php script:
>
> $iterations = 100;
> function all_the_stats($filename) {
> @lstat($filename);
> @stat($filename);
> }
> while ($iterations--) {
> all_the_stats(__FILE__);
> }
>
> I see this output:
>
>
On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 9:12 PM Christian Schneider
wrote:
> I'm interested in the load put on a system with a high request count and a
> typical application.
> Reducing system calls used to matter there as the kernel does not
> multi-process the same way user land does.
>
> But then again,
[sent a second time, now to the list, sorry]
On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 3:53 PM Christian Schneider
wrote:
> How can you say "it never was a problem" if we never had to live without stat
> cache?
> Can you back up that claim with numbers? There are some of us who run
> high-volume websites where
PS i've seen *HORRIBLE* fs performance for php-running-on-windows,
where the same filesystem operations on the same files took like 5 seconds
on linux-running-on-vmware-on-laptop-running-windows-10, versus several
minutes for the same operation on the same laptop on windows 10 directly..
for
Good morning,
On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 4:51 AM Hans Henrik Bergan wrote:
>
> PS i've seen *HORRIBLE* fs performance for php-running-on-windows,
> where the same filesystem operations on the same files took like 5 seconds
> on linux-running-on-vmware-on-laptop-running-windows-10, versus several
>
19 matches
Mail list logo
