[phpa] Re: Cached 'static' PHP vs HTML

>
> Quick question:
>
> Suppose I have a PHP script which is guaranteed to always generate the
> same output. That is, it contains no dynamic data, doesn't use
> sessions, no DB access or anything.
>
> What sort of performance should I expect from PHPA compared with the
> two alternative extremes of PHP without a cache (the slowest) and the
> equivalent page as HTML served by Apache with no use of PHP?
>
> I'm assuming that it's somewhere between the two, hopefully pretty
> close to the raw HTML end of trhe scale rather than the other end. Is
> that fair?

The HTML page will probably be fastest. Accelerated PHP in the middle.
Bog-standard PHP the slowest. If you had *really* slow I/O, like a file
server over an RS232 link and no kernel caching, then PHPA might be the
fastest as it's getting the page content from shm. That's probably all you
need to know. Everything else will depend on system configuration, etc.
Given the above, just use what's the most appropriate for your system.




------------------------------------------------------------------------
  www.php-accelerator.co.uk           Home of the free PHP Accelerator

To post, send email to phpa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe, email phpa-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with subject unsubscribe

Other related posts: