So, according to your made up shit, would a slow machine be better than a fast one for, um, whatever it is we're trying to have happen?
A vague disclaimer is nobody's friend.
Willow ,'Conversations with Dead People'
Buffistas Building a Better Board
Do you have problems, concerns or recommendations about the technical side of the Phoenix? Air them here. Compliments also welcome.
Elena - Aug 03, 2003 6:27:31 pm PDT #4509 of 10000
Thanks for all the fish.
§ ita § - Aug 03, 2003 6:31:08 pm PDT #4510 of 10000
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I think the changes that have just been made are probably the best interim move for this machine. Streamlining the SQL period is best for any machine.
Tom Scola - Aug 04, 2003 2:56:04 am PDT #4511 of 10000
Remember that the frontier of the Rebellion is everywhere. And even the smallest act of insurrection pushes our lines forward.
I don't know a whole lot about PHP, but it appears that it has support for persistent SQL connections built in.
PHP: Persistent Database Connections
However, this page gives the cryptic warning:
Warning:
Using persistent connections can require a bit of tuning of your Apache and MySQL configurations to ensure that you do not exceed the number of connections allowed by MySQL.
It doesn't go into details about what exactly those configuration parameters are, and how to tune them.
Michele T. - Aug 04, 2003 6:24:13 am PDT #4512 of 10000
with a gleam in my eye, and an almost airtight alibi
I'm going to do a little research, and see if I can turn up any information on the matter, or even better, someone who knows something about the subject already.
§ ita § - Aug 04, 2003 6:57:20 am PDT #4513 of 10000
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I think persistent connections are what we don't want. We're being told we have too many open -- not that we're opening too often. So persistent connections would leave us with more open, since we'd lose the respite when a normal connection is closed at the end of the script.
Kristen - Aug 04, 2003 7:40:56 am PDT #4514 of 10000
I thought the idea with persistent connections was that we had, say, 50 always open and every task used those 50, instead of opening and closing a connection each time the database is accessed.
§ ita § - Aug 04, 2003 7:44:31 am PDT #4515 of 10000
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I did some more reading, and you're right.
Can you ask your guy if his system is tuned in such a way this would be more efficient for it?
Kristen - Aug 04, 2003 7:48:42 am PDT #4516 of 10000
I will pose the question. Hopefully, I'll actually get a response to this question. </pissy bitch>
Kristen - Aug 04, 2003 8:09:46 am PDT #4517 of 10000
Oh and also. The replacement server goes online tomorrow night to begin testing. It looks like the move will happen on Thursday but that's not official yet.
Will let you know more as I hear.
§ ita § - Aug 04, 2003 2:29:42 pm PDT #4518 of 10000
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
While scrolling back to see to whom I'll be sending the ERD (Jess, Liese, expect it later tonight), I saw Typo Boy's assertion that we should have just one connection per page view -- we do -- PHP automatically reuses an open connection to the same database no matter if you try and open it manually.