Ipaq 3630 and V0.7.1: msg#00038 handhelds.gpe::
The download of version 0.7.1 work fine, but when I try to boot (even with. GPE or OPIE) Dentry cache hash table entries: 4096 (order: 3, 32768 bytes)
http://osdir.com/ml/handhelds.gpe/2003-09/msg00038.htmlHOME |
"fixed a nasty bug that sometime caused core dumps "
and works for php 4.03pl1---> 4.04pl1
http://bwcache.bware.it/cache.htm
Yes, it's easy to prove it. Without even trying. :)
The big thing about APC is that it uses shared resources - memory mapping or shared memory. So once a file has been compiled *once*, all other httpd processes have that compiled version available. With BWare/AB, each individual process has its own cache.
I don't doubt BWare will work on that, FWIW.
I have 890MB memory left on my machines. :)
MySQL Bugs: #4864: ByteFX.MySqlClient caches passwords if 'Persist ::
Aug 6, 2004 Version: 0.7.6.15073, OS: Microsoft Windows (WinXP) Username, Password); MySqlConnection conn = new MySqlConnection(cs); try { conn.
http://bugs.mysql.com/4864HOME |
But there's also the objective. I was getting 1400 pages per second out of BWare. I haven't tried APC but just using the web site, it's obvious that it is faster.
Anyway, I think both products are godsends and I finger my nose at Zend for bringing out their Cache product at such a high price point. I hope that Zend sells next to none of their Cache product.
APC cache is much faster than BWare/AB.
Can you prove this ?
APC cache isn't even capable of knowing when a file is updated and you must "reset" the cache in order of the changed files to be updated.
So what is the general concensus. Would I be better off if I used just ab cache or if I used Zend Optimizer no zend cache). Which one will give me better performance?
But doesn't APc have trouble determining when to "re-cache" the cached file? I thought I read that in one of these threads
The advantage of the zend cache is that is compatible with zend optimiozer.
But I wil certainly NOT throw away $3000 (1500x2 processors) for this.
so what version do you suggest , I've read the faq and readme but I'm still not sure whether to go withSHM OR MMAP
Any thoughts?
No, you can set server-wide TTL and also per-file TTL.
Per-file TTL only works with the SHM version.
Well in fact I still don't really need the cache system, since my hardware is still overpowered for my traffic.
I have 550 free megs of ram unused...
So yes, Ab cache does use a little more memory, but i'm not really able to judge any performance gain until I have more traffic.
As to now, it seems to work really well. I think the cache system will help you as long as you have free memory. If the cache make you use swap disk, sure, it won't help you.
I emailed the developer of the APC cache asking if it would be compatible and he said that he had no plans to try and reverse engineer the Zend Optimizer in order to get it to work with the APC cache :( Wayfinder UK - Empty your cache before visiting wayfinder.com::
Empty your cache before visiting wayfinder.com. 5/8/2008. wayfinder.com has got a face lift some days ago introducing a new logotype, lighter colours and
http://www.wayfinder.com/?id=8333&lang=en-UKHOME |
APC cache is much faster than BWare/AB.
For the $2K that you will spend to buy Zend's over-priced POS, you can have the source code and all for APC, and you can afford to put another gigabyte of memory and buy another two processors (with motherboard capable of it) in your web box.
Zend's Cache is a @#$@ ripoff!
Originally posted by Shaman
Give them some time. I'm sure they'll find a way to make the two work together.
I can't wait for them to do that -- well I can... I have 27 days left on my 1 month free trial of the cache. :)
I think APC is better than either, myself.
ITs actually $2000 for th 2 processors now.
I find it to be amazingly fast.
I have used APC cache and [ABcache[/b] and they just don't compare.
It is worht the money in my book...especially since it wil save me from having to upgrade to another $7000 server.
If The other free options can work as well, bug free, and work with the optimizer then I think I will go with them for pricing reasons.
I would like to setup a benchmarking script to compare the three products and see what the differences would be.
I also found APC cache to work much better than abcache...but that was on abcache 0.3
:)
MMAP is easier to manage, IMHO.
However, SHM outperforms it and there are more options to it. On Solaris you will have some trouble though, you need to up the amount of shared memory pool.
1.0.8 has been running on my servers for a day now, no surprises.
Not exactly related, but has anyone gone through the preview for Zend IDE? *drool*
Hello,
I have been running the demo of Zend Cache and it is amazing. It also works with the Zend Optimizer to speed thigns up even more!
How well does abcache work for you?
Originally posted by VirtueTech
How well does abcache work for you?
They both do the same thing, cache a compiled-version of PHP code, so basically the performance increases are the same. I'm just not going to spend $1500 for something I can get for free :)
LOL :)
Me too well maybe less. I think its like 26 days.
Maybe your right...for the price it is not worth it...but the Zend Cache with the Zend Optimizer is much faster than the APC cache.
I just wish the author could make it work with Zend Optimizer.
That would be key...to optimize than cache the scripts.
Give them some time. I'm sure they'll find a way to make the two work together.
 Where's The Advantage In Windows Genuine Advantage?
 Stocks Bounce After S&P Joins Bear Market
|
