lighttpd forum XCache > which is faster with xCache, mod_php or fcgi?

Anyone know which is faster?
xcache with mod_php or fcgi?
Anyone have a test benchmark on this?

i really want to switch to fcgi but i am afraid fcgi is much slower.

thanks for any advice.

simplehelix wrote:
> Anyone know which is faster?
> xcache with mod_php or fcgi?
> Anyone have a test benchmark on this?
> 
> i really want to switch to fcgi but i am afraid fcgi is much slower.
> 
> thanks for any advice.

lets also assume that fcgi setup will be under mpm worker with suExec on 
a quad core server with 24gb ram.

simplehelix wrote:
> simplehelix wrote:
>> Anyone know which is faster?
>> xcache with mod_php or fcgi?
>> Anyone have a test benchmark on this?
>> 
>> i really want to switch to fcgi but i am afraid fcgi is much slower.
>> 
>> thanks for any advice.
> 
> lets also assume that fcgi setup will be under mpm worker with suExec on 
> a quad core server with 24gb ram.

I don't think this makes any difference to the performance of xcache - 
it would still speed thinks up by the same amount, as the same amount of 
php has to be compiled and cached. It's more a question of what is 
faster - fastcgi or mod_php. I don't think there is a significant 
difference in the performance of the two when taken as a percentage of 
the overall time to serve a PHP page, especially if there is a database 
element involved too and/or the page contains a significant amount of 
code. If you weren't using the mpm worker and had 1-2gb of RAM then 
there is a definite advantage to fastcgi in terms of memory use, but on 
your platform the only thing I can suggest is benchmark them and see.

> I don't think this makes any difference to the performance of xcache - 
> it would still speed thinks up by the same amount, as the same amount of 
> php has to be compiled and cached. It's more a question of what is 
> faster - fastcgi or mod_php. I don't think there is a significant 
> difference in the performance of the two when taken as a percentage of 
> the overall time to serve a PHP page, especially if there is a database 
> element involved too and/or the page contains a significant amount of 
> code. If you weren't using the mpm worker and had 1-2gb of RAM then 
> there is a definite advantage to fastcgi in terms of memory use, but on 
> your platform the only thing I can suggest is benchmark them and see.
you're right, XCache behavoir the same for mod_php/fcgi as long as the 
childs are in the same process group.

and, "in theoretically", mod_php has better performance while fcgi has 
better scalability. i assume you know the difference between performance 
and scalability

moo XCache wrote:
>> I don't think this makes any difference to the performance of xcache - 
>> it would still speed thinks up by the same amount, as the same amount of 
>> php has to be compiled and cached. It's more a question of what is 
>> faster - fastcgi or mod_php. I don't think there is a significant 
>> difference in the performance of the two when taken as a percentage of 
>> the overall time to serve a PHP page, especially if there is a database 
>> element involved too and/or the page contains a significant amount of 
>> code. If you weren't using the mpm worker and had 1-2gb of RAM then 
>> there is a definite advantage to fastcgi in terms of memory use, but on 
>> your platform the only thing I can suggest is benchmark them and see.
> you're right, XCache behavoir the same for mod_php/fcgi as long as the 
> childs are in the same process group.
> 
> and, "in theoretically", mod_php has better performance while fcgi has 
> better scalability. i assume you know the difference between performance 
> and scalability

if I use suPHP with fastcgi, is there any way I can still take advantage 
of xCache? or is suPHP and xcache just not going to do anything for me?