[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       php-internals
Subject:    Re: [PHP-DEV] nginx+php-fpm question
From:       Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus () lerdorf ! com>
Date:       2010-09-16 4:16:06
Message-ID: 4C919A06.50804 () lerdorf ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 9/15/10 8:13 PM, J Ravi Menon wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com> wrote:
>> On 9/15/10 7:13 PM, J Ravi Menon wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:40 PM, J Ravi Menon <jravimenon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 9/15/10 10:57 AM, J Ravi Menon wrote:
>>>>>>  So my guess is, if we do php-fpm approach, we have to do all these
>>>>>> cleanups manually?  Or are there simpler solutions or hook-ups that
>>>>>> does it automatically at the end of the request cycle?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, fastcgi doesn't change this model at all.  You have the same
>>>>> end-of-requests cleanups as with mod_php.
>>>>>
>>>> Ah good to know.
>>>>
>>> So with this mod_php like behavior, do we also need to have apc
>>> enabled in this setup for the opcode cache? As a cli daemon, I am
>>> assuming this is not necessary?
>>
>> APC works perfectly out of the box with this setup.  It is no different
>> from something like Apache where you have a root process that creates
>> the mmap segment which then forks children that inherit the pointer to
>> that segment.
>>
> 
> Sorry I meant to ask if the opcode cache is necessary to avoid  the
> compilation step even if the same php-fcgi daemon has seen the same
> script before? My guess is that these fcgi hooks emulate a basic
> mod_php behavior without apc?

An opcode cache is still necessary, yes.  fcgi doesn't persist the
compiled opcodes.

-Rasmus

-- 
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]