Is there any advantage or deteriment to using both eAccelerator AND memcached on the same single server Wikipedia mirror on a relatively low traffic site? The reason I ask is that eAccelerator is installed as a PHP plugin and memcached is also installed. MediaWiki is set to use memcached for caching, however eAccelerator picks up on the PHP script and caches them too. So I'm wondering if that's a good idea (possibly redudant) or should I disabled eAccel in favor of memcached? Far as I know memcached is set to use 128MB of RAM at the moment. eAccelerator appears to be set to use 32MB, if that matters for answering the question.
Mike O
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Mike O wrote:
Is there any advantage or deteriment to using both eAccelerator AND memcached on the same single server Wikipedia mirror on a relatively low traffic site? The reason I ask is that eAccelerator is installed as a PHP plugin and memcached is also installed. MediaWiki is set to use memcached for caching, however eAccelerator picks up on the PHP script and caches them too. So I'm wondering if that's a good idea (possibly redudant) or should I disabled eAccel in favor of memcached? Far as I know memcached is set to use 128MB of RAM at the moment. eAccelerator appears to be set to use 32MB, if that matters for answering the question.
Well, try it both ways and see which way gives you better performance... :)
- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Mike,
disabled eAccel in favor of memcached? Far as I know memcached is set to use
128MB of RAM at the moment. eAccelerator appears to be set to use 32MB, if that matters for answering the question.
eAccelerator caches bytecode, memcached does not. Even then, if eAccelerator is used as bytecode cache, it is 10x faster than memcached, because there's no more communication/serialization overhead.
Domas
On 1/19/07, Domas Mituzas midom.lists@gmail.com wrote:
disabled eAccel in favor of memcached? Far as I know memcached is set to use 128MB of RAM at the moment. eAccelerator appears to be set to use 32MB, if that matters for answering the question.
eAccelerator caches bytecode, memcached does not. Even then, if eAccelerator is used as bytecode cache, it is 10x faster than memcached, because there's no more communication/serialization overhead.
See the "What about shared memory?" section of http://www.danga.com/memcached/ to get the other side of this. Since you (the OP) have a single server this advantage isn't useful, I think you'd be better off growing the eAccelerator cache to 128+32mb for the reasons Domas mentioned.
On 19/01/07, Evan Martin evanm@google.com wrote:
See the "What about shared memory?" section of http://www.danga.com/memcached/ to get the other side of this. Since you (the OP) have a single server this advantage isn't useful, I think you'd be better off growing the eAccelerator cache to 128+32mb for the reasons Domas mentioned.
It's worth mentioning that some of them, e.g. APC, offer both op/bytecode caches *and* arbitrary user caches, which means you can get the benefits of both, with a little tuning.
Rob Church
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org