high traffic websites

[Negin Nickparsa]

In general, what are the best ways to handle high traffic websites?

VPS(clouds)?
web analyzers?
dedicated servers?
distributed memory cache?


Sincerely
Negin Nickparsa

[Sebastian Krebs]

Post by Negin Nickparsa
In general, what are the best ways to handle high traffic websites?
VPS(clouds)?
web analyzers?
dedicated servers?
distributed memory cache?

Yes :)

But seriously: That is a topic most of us spent much time to get into it.
You can explain it with a bunch of buzzwords. Additional, how do you define
"high traffic websites"? Do you already _have_ such a site? Or do you
_want_ it? It's important, because I've seen it far too often, that
projects spent too much effort in their "high traffic infrastructure" and
at the end it wasn't that high traffic ;) I wont say, that you cannot be
successfull, but you should start with an effort you can handle.

Regards,
Sebastian

Post by Negin Nickparsa
Sincerely
Negin Nickparsa

[Negin Nickparsa]

Thank you Sebastian..actually I will already have one if qualified for the
job. Yes, and I may fail to handle it that's why I asked for guidance.
I wanted some tidbits to start over. I have searched through yslow,
HTTtrack and others.
I have searched through php list in my email too before asking this
question. it is kind of beneficial for all people and not has been asked
directly.


Sincerely
Negin Nickparsa

Post by Sebastian Krebs

Post by Negin Nickparsa
In general, what are the best ways to handle high traffic websites?
VPS(clouds)?
web analyzers?
dedicated servers?
distributed memory cache?

Yes :)
But seriously: That is a topic most of us spent much time to get into it.
You can explain it with a bunch of buzzwords. Additional, how do you define
"high traffic websites"? Do you already _have_ such a site? Or do you
_want_ it? It's important, because I've seen it far too often, that
projects spent too much effort in their "high traffic infrastructure" and
at the end it wasn't that high traffic ;) I wont say, that you cannot be
successfull, but you should start with an effort you can handle.
Regards,
Sebastian

Post by Negin Nickparsa
Sincerely
Negin Nickparsa

--
github.com/KingCrunch

[Camilo Sperberg]

Post by Negin Nickparsa
Thank you Sebastian..actually I will already have one if qualified for the
job. Yes, and I may fail to handle it that's why I asked for guidance.
I wanted some tidbits to start over. I have searched through yslow,
HTTtrack and others.
I have searched through php list in my email too before asking this
question. it is kind of beneficial for all people and not has been asked
directly.
Sincerely
Negin Nickparsa

Post by Sebastian Krebs

Post by Negin Nickparsa
In general, what are the best ways to handle high traffic websites?
VPS(clouds)?
web analyzers?
dedicated servers?
distributed memory cache?

Yes :)
But seriously: That is a topic most of us spent much time to get into it.
You can explain it with a bunch of buzzwords. Additional, how do you define
"high traffic websites"? Do you already _have_ such a site? Or do you
_want_ it? It's important, because I've seen it far too often, that
projects spent too much effort in their "high traffic infrastructure" and
at the end it wasn't that high traffic ;) I wont say, that you cannot be
successfull, but you should start with an effort you can handle.
Regards,
Sebastian

Post by Negin Nickparsa
Sincerely
Negin Nickparsa

--
github.com/KingCrunch

Your question is way too vague to be answered properly... My best guess would be that it depends severely on the type of website you have and how's the current implementation being well... implemented.

Simply said: what works for Facebook may/will not work for linkedIn, twitter or Google, mainly because the type of search differs A LOT: facebook is about relations between people, twitter is about small pieces of data not mainly interconnected between each other, while Google is all about links and all type of content: from little pieces of information through whole Wikipedia.

You could start by studying how varnish and redis/memcached works, you could study about how proxies work (nginx et al), CDNs and that kind of stuff, but if you want more specific answers, you could better ask specific question.

In the PHP area, an opcode cache does the job very well and can accelerate the page load by several orders of magnitude, I recommend OPCache, which is already included in PHP 5.5.

Greetings.

[Negin Nickparsa]

Thank you Camilo

to be more in details,suppose the website has 80,000 users and each page
takes 200 ms to be rendered and you have thousand hits in a second so we
want to reduce the time of rendering. is there any way to reduce the
rendering time?

other thing is suppose they want to upload files simultaneously and the
videos are in the website not on another server like YouTube and so streams
are really consuming the bandwidth.

Also,It is troublesome to get backups,when getting backups you have problem
of lock backing up with bulk of data.



Sincerely
Negin Nickparsa

Post by Sebastian Krebs

Post by Negin Nickparsa
Thank you Sebastian..actually I will already have one if qualified for

the

Post by Negin Nickparsa
job. Yes, and I may fail to handle it that's why I asked for guidance.
I wanted some tidbits to start over. I have searched through yslow,
HTTtrack and others.
I have searched through php list in my email too before asking this
question. it is kind of beneficial for all people and not has been asked
directly.
Sincerely
Negin Nickparsa

Post by Sebastian Krebs

Post by Negin Nickparsa
In general, what are the best ways to handle high traffic websites?
VPS(clouds)?
web analyzers?
dedicated servers?
distributed memory cache?

Yes :)
But seriously: That is a topic most of us spent much time to get into

it.

Post by Negin Nickparsa

Post by Sebastian Krebs
You can explain it with a bunch of buzzwords. Additional, how do you

define

Post by Negin Nickparsa

Post by Sebastian Krebs
"high traffic websites"? Do you already _have_ such a site? Or do you
_want_ it? It's important, because I've seen it far too often, that
projects spent too much effort in their "high traffic infrastructure"

and

Post by Negin Nickparsa

Post by Sebastian Krebs
at the end it wasn't that high traffic ;) I wont say, that you cannot be
successfull, but you should start with an effort you can handle.
Regards,
Sebastian

Post by Negin Nickparsa
Sincerely
Negin Nickparsa

--
github.com/KingCrunch

Your question is way too vague to be answered properly... My best guess
would be that it depends severely on the type of website you have and how's
the current implementation being well... implemented.
Simply said: what works for Facebook may/will not work for linkedIn,
facebook is about relations between people, twitter is about small pieces
of data not mainly interconnected between each other, while Google is all
about links and all type of content: from little pieces of information
through whole Wikipedia.
You could start by studying how varnish and redis/memcached works, you
could study about how proxies work (nginx et al), CDNs and that kind of
stuff, but if you want more specific answers, you could better ask specific
question.
In the PHP area, an opcode cache does the job very well and can accelerate
the page load by several orders of magnitude, I recommend OPCache, which is
already included in PHP 5.5.
Greetings.

[Sebastian Krebs]

Post by Negin Nickparsa
Thank you Camilo
to be more in details,suppose the website has 80,000 users and each page
takes 200 ms to be rendered and you have thousand hits in a second so we
want to reduce the time of rendering. is there any way to reduce the
rendering time?

Read about frontend-/proxy-caching (Nginx, Varnish) and ESI/SSI-include
(also NGinx and Varnish ;)). The idea is simply "If you don't have to
process on every request in the backend, don't process it in the backend on
every request".

But maybe you mixed up some words, because the rendering time is the time
consumed by the renderer within the browser (HTML and CSS). This you can
improve, if you improve your HTML/CSS :)


I am a little bit curious: Do you _really_ have 1000 requests/second, or do
you just throw some numbers in? ;)

Post by Negin Nickparsa
other thing is suppose they want to upload files simultaneously and the
videos are in the website not on another server like YouTube and so streams
are really consuming the bandwidth.

Well, if there are streams, there are streams. I cannot imagine, that there
is another way someone can stream a video without downloading it.

Post by Negin Nickparsa
Also,It is troublesome to get backups,when getting backups you have
problem of lock backing up with bulk of data.

Even in times, where there is not that much traffix? Automatic backup at
3:00 in the morning for example?

Post by Negin Nickparsa
Sincerely
Negin Nickparsa

Post by Sebastian Krebs

Post by Negin Nickparsa
Thank you Sebastian..actually I will already have one if qualified for

the

Post by Negin Nickparsa
job. Yes, and I may fail to handle it that's why I asked for guidance.
I wanted some tidbits to start over. I have searched through yslow,
HTTtrack and others.
I have searched through php list in my email too before asking this
question. it is kind of beneficial for all people and not has been asked
directly.
Sincerely
Negin Nickparsa

Post by Sebastian Krebs

Post by Negin Nickparsa
In general, what are the best ways to handle high traffic websites?
VPS(clouds)?
web analyzers?
dedicated servers?
distributed memory cache?

Yes :)
But seriously: That is a topic most of us spent much time to get into

it.

Post by Negin Nickparsa

Post by Sebastian Krebs
You can explain it with a bunch of buzzwords. Additional, how do you

define

Post by Negin Nickparsa

Post by Sebastian Krebs
"high traffic websites"? Do you already _have_ such a site? Or do you
_want_ it? It's important, because I've seen it far too often, that
projects spent too much effort in their "high traffic infrastructure"

and

Post by Negin Nickparsa

Post by Sebastian Krebs
at the end it wasn't that high traffic ;) I wont say, that you cannot

be

Post by Negin Nickparsa

Post by Sebastian Krebs
successfull, but you should start with an effort you can handle.
Regards,
Sebastian

Post by Negin Nickparsa
Sincerely
Negin Nickparsa

--
github.com/KingCrunch

Your question is way too vague to be answered properly... My best guess
would be that it depends severely on the type of website you have and how's
the current implementation being well... implemented.
Simply said: what works for Facebook may/will not work for linkedIn,
facebook is about relations between people, twitter is about small pieces
of data not mainly interconnected between each other, while Google is all
about links and all type of content: from little pieces of information
through whole Wikipedia.
You could start by studying how varnish and redis/memcached works, you
could study about how proxies work (nginx et al), CDNs and that kind of
stuff, but if you want more specific answers, you could better ask specific
question.
In the PHP area, an opcode cache does the job very well and can
accelerate the page load by several orders of magnitude, I recommend
OPCache, which is already included in PHP 5.5.
Greetings.

[Negin Nickparsa]

I am a little bit curious: Do you _really_ have 1000 requests/second, or do
you just throw some numbers in? ;)

Sebastian, supposedly_asking_to_get_some_pre_evaluation :)

Even in times, where there is not that much traffix? Automatic backup at
3:00 in the morning for example?

3:00 morning in one country is 9 Am in other country, 3 PM in other country
.

By the way Thank you so much guys, I wanted tidbits and you gave me more.

Stuart, I recall your replies in other situations and always you helped me
to improve.list is happy to have you.

Sincerely
Negin Nickparsa

Post by Sebastian Krebs

Post by Negin Nickparsa
Thank you Camilo
to be more in details,suppose the website has 80,000 users and each page
takes 200 ms to be rendered and you have thousand hits in a second so we
want to reduce the time of rendering. is there any way to reduce the
rendering time?

Read about frontend-/proxy-caching (Nginx, Varnish) and ESI/SSI-include
(also NGinx and Varnish ;)). The idea is simply "If you don't have to
process on every request in the backend, don't process it in the backend on
every request".
But maybe you mixed up some words, because the rendering time is the time
consumed by the renderer within the browser (HTML and CSS). This you can
improve, if you improve your HTML/CSS :)
I am a little bit curious: Do you _really_ have 1000 requests/second, or
do you just throw some numbers in? ;)

Post by Negin Nickparsa
other thing is suppose they want to upload files simultaneously and the
videos are in the website not on another server like YouTube and so streams
are really consuming the bandwidth.

Well, if there are streams, there are streams. I cannot imagine, that
there is another way someone can stream a video without downloading it.

Post by Negin Nickparsa
Also,It is troublesome to get backups,when getting backups you have
problem of lock backing up with bulk of data.

Even in times, where there is not that much traffix? Automatic backup at
3:00 in the morning for example?

Post by Negin Nickparsa
Sincerely
Negin Nickparsa

Post by Sebastian Krebs

Post by Negin Nickparsa
Thank you Sebastian..actually I will already have one if qualified for

the

Post by Negin Nickparsa
job. Yes, and I may fail to handle it that's why I asked for guidance.
I wanted some tidbits to start over. I have searched through yslow,
HTTtrack and others.
I have searched through php list in my email too before asking this
question. it is kind of beneficial for all people and not has been

asked

Post by Negin Nickparsa
directly.
Sincerely
Negin Nickparsa

Post by Sebastian Krebs

Post by Negin Nickparsa
In general, what are the best ways to handle high traffic websites?
VPS(clouds)?
web analyzers?
dedicated servers?
distributed memory cache?

Yes :)
But seriously: That is a topic most of us spent much time to get into

it.

Post by Negin Nickparsa

Post by Sebastian Krebs
You can explain it with a bunch of buzzwords. Additional, how do you

define

Post by Negin Nickparsa

Post by Sebastian Krebs
"high traffic websites"? Do you already _have_ such a site? Or do you
_want_ it? It's important, because I've seen it far too often, that
projects spent too much effort in their "high traffic infrastructure"

and

Post by Negin Nickparsa

Post by Sebastian Krebs
at the end it wasn't that high traffic ;) I wont say, that you cannot

be

Post by Negin Nickparsa

Post by Sebastian Krebs
successfull, but you should start with an effort you can handle.
Regards,
Sebastian

Post by Negin Nickparsa
Sincerely
Negin Nickparsa

--
github.com/KingCrunch

Your question is way too vague to be answered properly... My best guess
would be that it depends severely on the type of website you have and how's
the current implementation being well... implemented.
Simply said: what works for Facebook may/will not work for linkedIn,
facebook is about relations between people, twitter is about small pieces
of data not mainly interconnected between each other, while Google is all
about links and all type of content: from little pieces of information
through whole Wikipedia.
You could start by studying how varnish and redis/memcached works, you
could study about how proxies work (nginx et al), CDNs and that kind of
stuff, but if you want more specific answers, you could better ask specific
question.
In the PHP area, an opcode cache does the job very well and can
accelerate the page load by several orders of magnitude, I recommend
OPCache, which is already included in PHP 5.5.
Greetings.

--
github.com/KingCrunch

[Stuart Dallas]

Post by Negin Nickparsa
to be more in details,suppose the website has 80,000 users and each page
takes 200 ms to be rendered and you have thousand hits in a second so we
want to reduce the time of rendering. is there any way to reduce the
rendering time?
other thing is suppose they want to upload files simultaneously and the
videos are in the website not on another server like YouTube and so streams
are really consuming the bandwidth.
Also,It is troublesome to get backups,when getting backups you have problem
of lock backing up with bulk of data.

Your question is impossible to answer efficiently without profiling. You need to know what PHP is doing in those 200ms before you can target your optimisations for maximum effect.

I use xdebug to produce trace files. From there I can see exactly what is taking the most amount of time, and then I can look in to how to make that thing faster. When I'm certain there is no faster way to do what it's doing I move on to the next biggest thing.

Of course there are generic things you should do such as adding an opcode cache and looking at your server setup, but targeted optimisation is far better than trying generic stuff.

-Stuart

[Camilo Sperberg]

Post by Camilo Sperberg
I recommend OPCache, which is already included in PHP 5.5.

Camilo,
I'm just curious about the disadvantageous aspects of OPcache.
My logic says there must be some issues with it otherwise it would have come already enabled.
Sent from iPhone

Post by Camilo Sperberg

Post by Negin Nickparsa
Thank you Sebastian..actually I will already have one if qualified for the
job. Yes, and I may fail to handle it that's why I asked for guidance.
I wanted some tidbits to start over. I have searched through yslow,
HTTtrack and others.
I have searched through php list in my email too before asking this
question. it is kind of beneficial for all people and not has been asked
directly.
Sincerely
Negin Nickparsa

Post by Sebastian Krebs

Post by Negin Nickparsa
In general, what are the best ways to handle high traffic websites?
VPS(clouds)?
web analyzers?
dedicated servers?
distributed memory cache?

Yes :)
But seriously: That is a topic most of us spent much time to get into it.
You can explain it with a bunch of buzzwords. Additional, how do you define
"high traffic websites"? Do you already _have_ such a site? Or do you
_want_ it? It's important, because I've seen it far too often, that
projects spent too much effort in their "high traffic infrastructure" and
at the end it wasn't that high traffic ;) I wont say, that you cannot be
successfull, but you should start with an effort you can handle.
Regards,
Sebastian

Post by Negin Nickparsa
Sincerely
Negin Nickparsa

--
github.com/KingCrunch

Your question is way too vague to be answered properly... My best guess would be that it depends severely on the type of website you have and how's the current implementation being well... implemented.
Simply said: what works for Facebook may/will not work for linkedIn, twitter or Google, mainly because the type of search differs A LOT: facebook is about relations between people, twitter is about small pieces of data not mainly interconnected between each other, while Google is all about links and all type of content: from little pieces of information through whole Wikipedia.
You could start by studying how varnish and redis/memcached works, you could study about how proxies work (nginx et al), CDNs and that kind of stuff, but if you want more specific answers, you could better ask specific question.
In the PHP area, an opcode cache does the job very well and can accelerate the page load by several orders of magnitude, I recommend OPCache, which is already included in PHP 5.5.
Greetings.
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

The original RFC states:

https://wiki.php.net/rfc/optimizerplus
The integration proposed for PHP 5.5.0 is mostly 'soft' integration. That means that there'll be no tight coupling between Optimizer+ and PHP; Those who wish to use another opcode cache will be able to do so, by not loading Optimizer+ and loading another opcode cache instead. As per the Suggested Roadmap above, we might want to review this decision in the future; There might be room for further performance or functionality gains from tighter integration; None are known at this point, and they're beyond the scope of this RFC.

So that's why OPCache isn't enabled by default in PHP 5.5

Greetings.

[Sebastian Krebs]

Post by Camilo Sperberg
I recommend OPCache, which is already included in PHP 5.5.

Camilo,
I'm just curious about the disadvantageous aspects of OPcache.
My logic says there must be some issues with it otherwise it would have

come already enabled.

Sent from iPhone

Post by Camilo Sperberg

Post by Negin Nickparsa
Thank you Sebastian..actually I will already have one if qualified for

the

Post by Camilo Sperberg

Post by Negin Nickparsa
job. Yes, and I may fail to handle it that's why I asked for guidance.
I wanted some tidbits to start over. I have searched through yslow,
HTTtrack and others.
I have searched through php list in my email too before asking this
question. it is kind of beneficial for all people and not has been

asked

Post by Camilo Sperberg

Post by Negin Nickparsa
directly.
Sincerely
Negin Nickparsa

Post by Sebastian Krebs

Post by Negin Nickparsa
In general, what are the best ways to handle high traffic websites?
VPS(clouds)?
web analyzers?
dedicated servers?
distributed memory cache?

Yes :)
But seriously: That is a topic most of us spent much time to get into

it.

Post by Camilo Sperberg

Post by Negin Nickparsa

Post by Sebastian Krebs
You can explain it with a bunch of buzzwords. Additional, how do you

define

Post by Camilo Sperberg

Post by Negin Nickparsa

Post by Sebastian Krebs
"high traffic websites"? Do you already _have_ such a site? Or do you
_want_ it? It's important, because I've seen it far too often, that
projects spent too much effort in their "high traffic infrastructure"

and

Post by Camilo Sperberg

Post by Negin Nickparsa

Post by Sebastian Krebs
at the end it wasn't that high traffic ;) I wont say, that you cannot

be

Post by Camilo Sperberg

Post by Negin Nickparsa

Post by Sebastian Krebs
successfull, but you should start with an effort you can handle.
Regards,
Sebastian

Post by Negin Nickparsa
Sincerely
Negin Nickparsa

--
github.com/KingCrunch

Your question is way too vague to be answered properly... My best guess

would be that it depends severely on the type of website you have and how's
the current implementation being well... implemented.

Post by Camilo Sperberg
Simply said: what works for Facebook may/will not work for linkedIn,

facebook is about relations between people, twitter is about small pieces
of data not mainly interconnected between each other, while Google is all
about links and all type of content: from little pieces of information
through whole Wikipedia.

Post by Camilo Sperberg
You could start by studying how varnish and redis/memcached works, you

could study about how proxies work (nginx et al), CDNs and that kind of
stuff, but if you want more specific answers, you could better ask specific
question.

Post by Camilo Sperberg
In the PHP area, an opcode cache does the job very well and can

accelerate the page load by several orders of magnitude, I recommend
OPCache, which is already included in PHP 5.5.

Post by Camilo Sperberg
Greetings.
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

https://wiki.php.net/rfc/optimizerplus
The integration proposed for PHP 5.5.0 is mostly 'soft' integration. That
means that there'll be no tight coupling between Optimizer+ and PHP; Those
who wish to use another opcode cache will be able to do so, by not loading
Optimizer+ and loading another opcode cache instead. As per the Suggested
Roadmap above, we might want to review this decision in the future; There
might be room for further performance or functionality gains from tighter
integration; None are known at this point, and they're beyond the scope of
this RFC.
So that's why OPCache isn't enabled by default in PHP 5.5

Also worth to mention, that it is the first release with an opcode-cache
integrated. Giving the other some release to get used to it, sounds useful
:)

Greetings.
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[Negin Nickparsa]

it may be helpful for someone.
I liked GTmetrix kinda helpful and magic. <http://gtmetrix.com/#!>


Sincerely
Negin Nickparsa

Post by Negin Nickparsa

Post by Camilo Sperberg
I recommend OPCache, which is already included in PHP 5.5.

Camilo,
I'm just curious about the disadvantageous aspects of OPcache.
My logic says there must be some issues with it otherwise it would

have

come already enabled.

Sent from iPhone

Post by Camilo Sperberg

Post by Negin Nickparsa
Thank you Sebastian..actually I will already have one if qualified

for

the

Post by Camilo Sperberg

Post by Negin Nickparsa
job. Yes, and I may fail to handle it that's why I asked for

guidance.

Post by Camilo Sperberg

Post by Negin Nickparsa
I wanted some tidbits to start over. I have searched through yslow,
HTTtrack and others.
I have searched through php list in my email too before asking this
question. it is kind of beneficial for all people and not has been

asked

Post by Camilo Sperberg

Post by Negin Nickparsa
directly.
Sincerely
Negin Nickparsa
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Sebastian Krebs <

Post by Sebastian Krebs

Post by Negin Nickparsa
In general, what are the best ways to handle high traffic websites?
VPS(clouds)?
web analyzers?
dedicated servers?
distributed memory cache?

Yes :)
But seriously: That is a topic most of us spent much time to get

into

it.

Post by Camilo Sperberg

Post by Negin Nickparsa

Post by Sebastian Krebs
You can explain it with a bunch of buzzwords. Additional, how do you

define

Post by Camilo Sperberg

Post by Negin Nickparsa

Post by Sebastian Krebs
"high traffic websites"? Do you already _have_ such a site? Or do

you

Post by Camilo Sperberg

Post by Negin Nickparsa

Post by Sebastian Krebs
_want_ it? It's important, because I've seen it far too often, that
projects spent too much effort in their "high traffic

infrastructure"

and

Post by Camilo Sperberg

Post by Negin Nickparsa

Post by Sebastian Krebs
at the end it wasn't that high traffic ;) I wont say, that you

cannot

be

Post by Camilo Sperberg

Post by Negin Nickparsa

Post by Sebastian Krebs
successfull, but you should start with an effort you can handle.
Regards,
Sebastian

Post by Negin Nickparsa
Sincerely
Negin Nickparsa

--
github.com/KingCrunch

Your question is way too vague to be answered properly... My best

guess

would be that it depends severely on the type of website you have and

how's

the current implementation being well... implemented.

Post by Camilo Sperberg
Simply said: what works for Facebook may/will not work for linkedIn,

facebook is about relations between people, twitter is about small pieces
of data not mainly interconnected between each other, while Google is all
about links and all type of content: from little pieces of information
through whole Wikipedia.

Post by Camilo Sperberg
You could start by studying how varnish and redis/memcached works, you

could study about how proxies work (nginx et al), CDNs and that kind of
stuff, but if you want more specific answers, you could better ask

specific

question.

Post by Camilo Sperberg
In the PHP area, an opcode cache does the job very well and can

accelerate the page load by several orders of magnitude, I recommend
OPCache, which is already included in PHP 5.5.

Post by Camilo Sperberg
Greetings.
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

https://wiki.php.net/rfc/optimizerplus
The integration proposed for PHP 5.5.0 is mostly 'soft' integration. That
means that there'll be no tight coupling between Optimizer+ and PHP;

Those

who wish to use another opcode cache will be able to do so, by not

loading

Optimizer+ and loading another opcode cache instead. As per the Suggested
Roadmap above, we might want to review this decision in the future; There
might be room for further performance or functionality gains from tighter
integration; None are known at this point, and they're beyond the scope

of

this RFC.
So that's why OPCache isn't enabled by default in PHP 5.5

Also worth to mention, that it is the first release with an opcode-cache
integrated. Giving the other some release to get used to it, sounds useful
:)

Greetings.
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

--
github.com/KingCrunch