[wp-hackers] WP-Cache vs. eAccelerator vs. Memcache vs. ... (Yeah, another server opt. discussion)

[Computer Guru]

Ooops - I thought you were linking to the XCache plugin.

http://neosmart.net/dl.php?id=12

eAccelerator and XCache work in the same exact way, but XCache performs
better.

On 10/28/07, Computer Guru <computerguru at neosmart.net> wrote:
>
> They're both the same (hold on though, I have an update I've been meaning
> to release!) with regards to WP integration - they do the same exact thing
> the same exact way (I based my code off Ryan's).
>
> However, XCache is the newest and has (in real-life testing) proven to be
> the fastest - I was using APC then eAccelerator and am now on XCache - very
> happy with it. Memcached is the slowest, but it offers support for
> distributed servers - but you're not using that.
>
> XCache has support for multi-processor setups (I'm using it on a dual-core
> right now, set the "count" option to two).
>
> IMHO, go with XCache, it's a good choice.
>
> On 10/28/07, Viper007Bond <viper at viper007bond.com> wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, dual box hosting was too expensive, so we switched back to a
> > single
> > box. Plus, this box has 4 dual core processors, so we can split up the
> > processors to act as separate servers of sorts.
> >
> > Anyway, basically it comes down to which of these to install and would
> > yield
> > the best performance:
> >
> > http://neosmart.net/dl.php?id=13
> > http://ryan.wordpress.com/2005/12/23/memcached-backend/
> >
> > (As you can only install one)
> >
> > On 10/27/07, Stephane Daury <wordpress at tekartist.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hey V,
> > >
> > > The core asset of memcache are that it's language agnostic and
> > > distributed in nature. So it will really pay off if you want to use
> > > it for all the (compatible) apps running on your server and/or if
> > > you're running a cluster of box that you can run the daemon on and
> > > share the load across. It will work fine on it's own, but you lose
> > > the distributed advantage if you run it on only one machine (load
> > > balancing and fault tolerance). Kinda using a Ferrari to go grocery
> > > shopping: it works, but is it really appropriate?
> > >
> > > On the other hand, eAccelerator is PHP-only, but has the advantage of
> > > handling both opcode and caching, which is another layer of
> > > performance tuning.
> > >
> > > In the cluster environment I was running at McGill (last day
> > > yesterday), we pretty much ran both: memcache for caching, because we
> > > had multiple web nodes, and eAccelerator, but purely for the opcode
> > > advantage of the latter. They don't conflict (but the WP plugins
> > > using either probably will).
> > >
> > > Nothing scientific in my answer (don't have benchmark numbers to give
> > > you), but I think in your context, I'd probably focus on
> > > eAccelerator, at least for now.
> > >
> > > Stephane
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Oct 27, 2007, at 10:53, Viper007Bond wrote:
> > >
> > > > I've just upgraded my server and figured it'd be a good time to re-
> > > > examine
> > > > the big WordPress install on the server and it's optimization. The
> > > > install
> > > > gets ~40k hits on a slow day and over 100k on more popular ones
> > > > (which is
> > > > 1-3 days of the week).
> > > >
> > > > For years now, I've just used WP-Cache. It worked fine and my buddy
> > > > who
> > > > manages our server for me even enabled caching WP-Cache's folder to
> > > > memory
> > > > (I think, server configs obviously aren't really my thing). But
> > after
> > > > discovering the eAccelerator and Memcache plugins out there that
> > > > make direct
> > > > usage of the modules, I figured that'd be more efficient than
> > > > caching to
> > > > static files via WP-Cache.
> > > >
> > > > However, I'm a bit clueless here and don't know which to use as my
> > > > buddy
> > > > says both eAccelerator and Memcache are installed. I'd ask him, but
> > he
> > > > doesn't know WordPress at all really.
> > > >
> > > > phpinfo() -> http://titan.finalgear.com/php.php
> > > >
> > > > Server specs can be listed if wanted as to determine which would be
> > > > best for
> > > > the hardware.
> > > >
> > > > So, any thoughts on the matter? And yeah, I did poke around the
> > Google
> > > > Groups archive some, but didn't come up with anything of much use.
> > > > Then
> > > > again, I'm not a search master.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Viper007Bond | http://www.viper007bond.com/
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > wp-hackers mailing list
> > > > wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> > > > http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > wp-hackers mailing list
> > > wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> > > http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Viper007Bond | http://www.viper007bond.com/
> > _______________________________________________
> > wp-hackers mailing list
> > wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> > http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Computer Guru
> Director,
> NeoSmart Technologies
> http://neosmart.net/blog/




-- 
Computer Guru
Director,
NeoSmart Technologies
http://neosmart.net/blog/