Turck MMCache Vs PHP Accelerator

After running MMCache for a day I have mixed feelings about it.
Our site felt faster when I browsed it but when I examined the logs the results were disappointing. Hourly adviews were almost all down by up to a 25% but mostly by 10%, but for an hour or two exceeded the previous day’s ones. By the end of the day, adviews were down by almost 10% in total.

I benchmarked both applications this morning using Siege.
MMCache performed marginally better in all tests, but only by a few percent.
MMCache caused a few problems for us, mainly because it reintroduced a limitation of PHP3. In PHP3 a class or function couldn’t be defined twice, but that’s changed in PHP4. I had to go around editing php files yesterday changing include/require to include_once/require_once which fixed 99.99% of the problems.
I may try it again next week but for now, it’s back to PHP Accelerator.

Out of curiosity I attempted the same benchmark without using any cache/optimizer. I stopped it halfway through when the load average of the box hit 40. Oops.

Related links: The Joy of Turck MMCache | TikiBoosting | which php compiler cache is stable? | PHP caching and optimization

One thought on “Turck MMCache Vs PHP Accelerator

  1. By using the ./phpa_cache_admin tool I found out that the shm cache used by PHPA was disabled. I know it *was* enabled so that might be something to watch out for if you have it installed. Hits are way up since I activated it!

    Looks like I can’t allocate more than 32MB to the shm cache too, but setting the shm_ttl to 20 minutes makes sure that only very commonly accessed pages are stored there!

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this:

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.