Talk:Performance recommendations: Difference between revisions
Rory Allford (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Ken Wilson (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
eAccelerator does seem by consensus to be the way to go, but though there's a working beta there appear to be issues with its stability and performance, especially with PHP5 (e.g. breaks the -GRACEFUL command in apachectl). It's flagged as unstable in most repositories - the message on the forums appears to be wait around a little! Rory Allford | eAccelerator does seem by consensus to be the way to go, but though there's a working beta there appear to be issues with its stability and performance, especially with PHP5 (e.g. breaks the -GRACEFUL command in apachectl). It's flagged as unstable in most repositories - the message on the forums appears to be wait around a little! Rory Allford | ||
Changes have now been made to update this section. Please check if anything is missing or needs amending. [[User:Ken Wilson|Ken Wilson]] 10:59, 4 January 2007 (CST) |
Revision as of 16:59, 4 January 2007
there's still the suggestion of using turck mmcache. the last release is from 11/2003! is that recommendation valid? are there better alternatives? what about eaccelerator?
eAccelerator does seem by consensus to be the way to go, but though there's a working beta there appear to be issues with its stability and performance, especially with PHP5 (e.g. breaks the -GRACEFUL command in apachectl). It's flagged as unstable in most repositories - the message on the forums appears to be wait around a little! Rory Allford
Changes have now been made to update this section. Please check if anything is missing or needs amending. Ken Wilson 10:59, 4 January 2007 (CST)