On Nov 6, 2013 11:38 AM, "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
[reply] [-] Comment 7 Andre Klapper 2013-11-06 15:31:43 UTC Closing as INVALID, a bugtracker is not the place to discuss this. Please refer to the support desk or the mediawiki-l mailing list at https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED Resolution: --- → INVALID
Rather like the other bug I submitted 10 years ago. Dismissed... but how about Zend_OPcache_v7.0.3-dev_35188?
This is not an appropriate way to move discussion from bug to the mailing list.
You copy/pasted some or all of a bugzilla bug but didn't state the bug number. You moved discussion first to bugzilla and then to this list without referring readers in the first place you posted to the latter instances. (better link: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Thread:Project:Support_desk/Zend_OPcache_v7.0...) That wall of text is made substantially less readable because of the ways it was transformed from the original to plain text. (overescaped entities, no line breaks between comments, etc. also the metadata seems to be missing too.) You should typically just *link* the URL for the bug but not copy/paste wholesale.
If you want an answer you should give the bug number in question and a brief summary of the question.
On Nov 6, 2013 12:07 PM, "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Also see https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:MediaWiki_architecture#Caching
which has this: "The last caching layer consists of the PHP opcode cache, commonly enabled to speed up PHP applications. Compilation can be a lengthy process; to avoid compiling PHP scripts into opcode every time they're invoked, a PHP accelerator can be used to store the compiled opcode and execute it directly without compilation. MediaWiki will "just work" with many accelerators such as APC, PHP accelerator and eAccelerator.
Because of its Wikimedia bias, MediaWiki is optimized for this complete, multi-layer, distributed caching infrastructure. Nonetheless, it also natively supports alternate setups for smaller sites. For example, it offers an optional simplistic file caching system that stores the output of fully rendered pages, like Squid does. Also, MediaWiki's abstract object caching layer lets it store the cached objects in several places, including the file system, the database, or the opcode cache.
So does Zend_OPcache_v7.0.3-dev_35188 just work?
That's a bit better. Have you considered that you may have to answer the question yourself?
If you care so much about getting an answer then why don't you test it? or ask Zend if they have?
What's your goal anyway? surely APC will have a bigger share of MediaWiki instances for the foreseeable future, right? is there a reason *not* to use APC?
Also, based on my reading of your thread there's 2 different kinds of caching being discussed: object and opcode caching. I'm unsure if you've noticed that difference or which your asking about. (both are mentioned at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Cache ; see first 2 sections after TOC)
-Jeremy