Scaling a PHP MySQL Web Application(oracle.com)

24 pointsby AbyCodes15 yıl önce6 comments

http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/articles/dsl/white-php-part1-355135.html

3 comments

bartl15 yıl önce

Is that demo code for the caching system not broken? It looks to me like, if the cache gets rebuilt, the output is only sent to the file, and there's no output sent to the browser. I can't test that right now, and there are a few functions there I've never used, but that is what it looks like.

Also: I don't like system that just check for the age of the cache, and not a more elaborate system that, using a single simple DB query, checks if the input data has changed, before regenerating the file. That looks way more useful to me. But, of course, you have to hand code that query for each page.

pjscott15 yıl önce

The easy and Right way to add caching is to stick something like Varnish in front. It can also handle load-balancing, which is nice.

gpapilion15 yıl önce

I always take issue with people talking about replication as a solution to scalability. It better to think of replication as a solution for availability.

pjscott15 yıl önce

In the case of a read-heavy database workload, adding some read-only slaves can scale for a while.

ck215 yıl önce

I think part2 is far better suited for the typical knowledge level on HN:

http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/articles/dsl/white-php-par...

BTW their demonstration code where they hit filemtime constant to see if a file is outdated is also a bad recommendation since there is OS overhead, especially exaggerated if you use NAS. Instead use time of day for an zero-load way to check if sometime is out of date, and only update during times of lower load.

rjbond3rd15 yıl önce

Based on that example caching code (in Part 1):

> if (file_exists($file) && (filemtime($file) + $timeout) > time()) {

It would seem (at least on the surface) to be preferable (faster and simpler) to just serve static pages already, with another cron to overwrite (i.e., freshen) them periodically. That skips testing for the file's existence, the hash, time(), the comparison.

While all those (trivial) operations are no doubt lightning fast, that code is already serving static pages, so the cache seems like it has no real benefit (to me).