|
|
Posted by William Lovaton on 01/06/05 16:54
Rasmus,
I see much better performance with Apache 2. I'm not an expert in the
internals of Apache nor PHP but I guess one of the improvements in
apache is the log mechanism, I think it use a different technique that
makes it faster that Apache 1.3
The reason I say this is because Apache 1.3 log are written in perfect
order according to the time field. I Apache 2 the logs are not ordered
so you can have something like this:
172.20.15.138 - - [06/Jan/2005:09:43:55 -0500]
192.168.149.42 - - [06/Jan/2005:09:43:55 -0500]
192.168.150.27 - - [06/Jan/2005:09:43:55 -0500]
172.16.113.22 - - [06/Jan/2005:09:43:53 -0500]
192.1.20.197 - - [06/Jan/2005:09:43:54 -0500]
192.168.172.20 - - [06/Jan/2005:09:43:55 -0500]
192.168.150.66 - - [06/Jan/2005:09:43:55 -0500]
This is extracted from my production server with FC3 Apache 2.0.52 and
PHP 4.3.9
-William
El mié, 05-01-2005 a las 04:58 -0800, Rasmus Lerdorf escribió:
> Lester Caine wrote:
> > Sebastian wrote:
> >> I know everything has cons/pros but i am just looking for advice on
> >> whether
> >> my site will benifit from the upgrade. I'm curious to know if a site that
> >> normally sees 300-500 users online would see any improvements.
> >
> > That would be nice information to find out, but does not seem to be
> > available.
>
> If you are serving up a lot of static file, you will see an improvement.
> If it is all dynamic PHP requests, then you won't. Apache really
> doesn't have much to do on a PHP request so all the performance depends
> on the speed of PHP, not Apache. There are a few places where Apache2
> has improved things for a PHP request, but these tend to be countered by
> a few places where things have gotten ore expensive. Every benchmark I
> have done puts PHP under Apache2 right in the same ballpark as PHP under
> Apache1 with Apache1 usually a little bit ahead. But do your own
> testing on your own platform. Other peoples' benchmarks are meaningless.
>
> -Rasmus
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|