> -=- (from other discussion)
> Interesting that facebook uses both. The fedora maintainer for the apc rpm
> listed it as conflicting with memcache. If you can use both, that's a fedora
> packaging but that should be fixed.
I've never seen, nor heard of, a full scale caching implementation
that do
Brandon Johnson wrote:
you think this is similar to http://www.danga.com/memcached/ or you think
this method would be faster ? Which do you say would be the greatest
benfit ?
In my case I think apc is better because I'm single server xen host and
(after reading the other posts in thread) mo
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Paul Scott wrote:
> Eddie Drapkin wrote:
>> if you want a pure opcode cache, APC is a great choice.
>>
>>> you think this is similar to http://www.danga.com/memcached/ or you think
>>> this method would be faster ? Which do you say would be the greatest
>>> benfit ?
ok thanks for information was just something I was reading about the
other night. Then I came across this message.
Brandon
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Eddie Drapkin wrote:
> if you want a pure opcode cache, APC is a great choice.
>
>> you think this is similar to http://www.danga.com/memcached/ or you think
>> this method would be faster ? Which do you say would be the greatest
>> benfit ?
>>
A simple rule of thumb that I use is:
If you have on
if you want a pure opcode cache, APC is a great choice.
APC should //not// be used for persistent RAM storage. Memcached is
much faster and designed for that aim, while not being tied to the
webserver.
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 2:10 AM, Brandon Johnson wrote:
> you think this is similar to http://w
you think this is similar to http://www.danga.com/memcached/ or you think
this method would be faster ? Which do you say would be the greatest
benfit ?
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
7 matches
Mail list logo
