SHS` wrote:Aside from what David has said, even acm_file is quite sufficient for a site like phpBB.com (httpd CPU usage is roughly 2x/3x compared to without using a non-acm_file module... but ho-hum),
Indeed you are correct.
I’ve logged test results (load times and memory consumption) in identical situations with each phpBB acm method that I’ve tested so far, and although there is a slight improvement by going with a non-file based acm method such as APC or XCache, the benefits are not that huge. -- It would start to be beneficial for much larger sites anyways, but those larger sites will be on virtual, semi-dedicated or dedicated servers. -- however, if there is a workaround for the disabled shm functions of eA 0.9.5, I think they should be considered, as even most/many server administrators are not going to want to have to recompile eA unless they feel there is real benefit. -- or they may not know how to recompile eA -- Though I thought it should be mentioned because server administrators who have eA 0.9.5 are going to experience an error and may not know what it’s about, thinking that it may be a bug in acm_eaccelerator.php, but it’s not... it’s a server configuration with eA.
-- If there is no workable alternative, then that’s understandable, but I think it should be looked into.
I’ve tested XCache and APC so far... I still have the memcache and I’ll recompile eA to work with the shm functions and test that one as well.
So far no problems, but I’ll run my test sites on the alternate acm methods for a while.