PHP Optimized for Windows Server 2008 182
Stony Stevenson writes "It used to be that popular PHP applications would run more poorly on Windows Server than on a Linux or Unix servers, for which PHP had been optimized. Specialist in the PHP language Zend Technologies now says that's no longer the case. The Zend Core commercially supported form of PHP has been certified by Microsoft as ready to run 'with performance and stability' on Windows Server 2008, said Andi Gutmans, co-founder and CTO of Zend. Previously, PHP 'didn't run as well as it should on Windows,' said Gutmans, despite the fact that 75% to 80% of PHP users were developing on Windows workstations."
In Short (Score:5, Insightful)
FastCGI != Apache Module (Score:5, Informative)
I applaud the effort to embrace open source languages though and hope they continue along this path of self improvement.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
http://wordpress.org/support/topic/150672 [wordpress.org]
-theGreater's $0.02.
Re:FastCGI != Apache Module (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, in the case of PHP, there's an extra incentive. I don't trust PHP's security or sanity for shit. So I'd much rather have it running in its own process with its own permissions than have it dynamically linked directly into my webserver
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you're running stuff like $query="INSERT INTO `users` (`name`) VALUES '${_GET['name']}';";, it really doesn't matter what language you're using.
But a language which uses this kind of thing, rather than a printf analogue with encoded type information is much more likely to encourage this kind of code. The PostgreSQL C interface contains a printf-like function which doesn't include the arguments in the SQL string at all, it puts pointers to arguments and the arguments themselves in the packet sent to the server so there is no escaping ever required because string arguments never go through the SQL parser. The same is true of most databases, and ye
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
mod_php doesn't cost anything. Apache doesn't cost anything. FastCGI on the other hand is a product which has upgrades and a server product that costs. So it sounds more like FastCGI and Microsoft have more to sell
Er... no? FastCGI is an open protocol (not product) with scads of free implementations that's compatible with a pile of webservers. As for "having something to sell", I meant Zend, who have a big hand in PHP, and are clearly interested in selling you something.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It would be interesting to compare the performance to that of Python [insert
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
FastCGI's benefit is that every FastCGI handler is still a separate process, so you don't run into threading issues, while at the same time not
Re: (Score:2)
This makes it a no brainer for anyting but playing with it. After finding this out we tested with fastcgi, it's nice but iis is still extremely complicated to handle and and the os is soo hungry (1gb ram for an intranet server and w2k3 is barely usable on the shell).
finally i c
Re: PHP Optimised for Windows Server 2008 (Score:1, Funny)
Excellent. This way, when it turns out to be false, they can always say: "We didn't mention 'good' performance.
Re: (Score:2)
right now i have an exchange box that is failing backup's.. it fails do to a check sum error.. dig further and it says it is failing check sum because of a bad sector....
it is a VM... it is using a virtual disk... and the physical disk the virtual disk is on is fine...
it just makes you scratch your head and ask.. what the fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
Light on details (Score:2, Insightful)
Other incapatiblities (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Because the Mac is an irksome piece of shit with a bad UI and uninteresting hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not interesting hardware. Interesting hardware is "not either underpowered or ridiculously overdone." I have no need for a Mini or a Mac Pro, no matter how I slice it. Apple's hardware is pathetic.
but still, apple has the most innovative daily use design.
Innovative is not exclusive of "bad".
If you never tried, or if you tried 5 years ago you can criticize as much as you like, it's pointless.
I work at a place with
Re: (Score:2)
I am forced to, yes.
Well if you don't know how to use it, it sure is shit... Just like Solaris, IRIX, Windows, Mac OS or anything else is shit to my grandma. She prefers the cassette player and the TV.
Yeah, because using them daily for most of a year means I don't know how to use it. Get a fucking brain.
Indeed, until now Apple provides me with the least worst design I found (for a price an average sized company can pay).
Diffe
Re: (Score:2)
and compatibility issues are tales from ages ago
Not quite.
... this works if you're okay working with an older JVM, but not if not .NET programming ... though that wont affect many devs
Mac's are nice, but there are lots of things that wont run or wont run right there.
Outlook (and no, the Mac Office version doesnt count, its garbage)
Eclipse/Java
Good IM clients
HUGE numbers of line of business admin apps are windows only
Re: (Score:2)
Misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Misleading (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I suppose you could make a very complex analogy about tailgate parties or something, but it really seems like too much trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
"Windows is like a tuna sandwich with it's bread welded shut..."
Re: (Score:2)
Those of us with limited bandwidth on our Linux servers and developing PHP on Windows workstations use something like PHPEclipse [sourceforge.net] with XAMPP [apachefriends.org] and test locally first, then upload to the remote server and do final testing and tweaking from there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not for PHP applications, no. Good enough for light testing, but not production.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Misleading (Score:5, Informative)
Only if you have problems reading English. That sentence clearly speaks about development, not deployment.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
well, unless those developers run windows 2008 server on their workstations.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Only if you have problems reading English. That sentence clearly speaks about development, not deployment.
No, he was right on the mark. You are correct that the sentence clearly says development. But the point is that mentioning development in this context is misleading. It doesn't matter where code is written, it matters where the code is run, if you are talking about the performance of the code. TFA is misleading in that respect. It seems their point has an underlying assumption that development and production should be on the same OS or something like that; under that assumption the quote makes sense. It's
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, I was pleasantly surprised they even had PHP configured on their boxes at all (I thought it was only ASP at first). And a pretty up-to-date version as well.
Re:Misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
My company's PHP based software runs over 95 percent on IIS servers. We have a single customer that uses linux for their web server platform (a university). We're talking about big customers here, like Siemens and ISS (one of the world's largest cleaning firms), with dozens of servers each running our platform, all of them Windows servers.
We've been deploying PHP on fastcgi the whole time. ISAPI has never been stable, and CGI has always been too slow.
Tthe situation changes for non-intranet web apps. Those tend to be linux-hosted because people tend to outsource their hosting. But for in-house hosted software, most of the time you have to fall back on the existing network team, who is usually specialized in windows, so they tend to prefer windows-based web servers, even if it's just for the sake of uniformity.
Re: (Score:2)
Previously, PHP "didn't run as well as it should on Windows," said Gutmans, despite the fact that 75% to 80% of PHP users were developing on Windows workstations. When they deployed their Windows-based applications to production, their performance was disappointing and they tended to develop on Windows and deploy under Unix or Linux. Now the three platforms should be available on a more equal footing, he said.
The article SPECIFICALLY states that most develop on windows workstations and deploy on a unix or equiv.
How exactly did my parent get marked insightful? By re-stating a sentence from the article in a hostile, anti-microsoft tone?
Re: (Score:2)
This is misleading.
75% to 80% of PHP users were developing on Windows workstations.
And how many of these applications are being deployed on Windows? Probably not that many. Windows isn't a great server operating system.
Not just that, but too many developers need to at least do a portion of their work on a Windows machine (virtual or "real"), simply because no matter how compatible the stuff the server sends, IE displays things just a little different (depending on version, sub-version, fonts installed, how IE decides it wants to handle font request, day of the week...). I run a Windows box (well, two if you count the virtual session on my non-Windows machine)... I don't do my development on it - but I do use it regularl
Nothing to do with optimization (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It's like CGI in that you can write FastCGI apps in all sorts of different languages, and they are more portable across different webservers (if they support fastcgi and you can figure out how to turn it on).
Years ago I tested my FastCGI perl apps which were on Apache on a Zeus webserver and they worked fine (can't recall if they worked faster, they might have
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. For years there's been an unofficial FastCGI library for IIS (by Shane Caraveo), that you could use with PHP4 and PHP5. We've been deploying on windows using this library, and it ran stable and at acceptable performance levels.
The new microsoft FastCGI library is simply an officially supported form of FastCGI. It ships with IIS7 by default, and is available as an add-on install for IIS6. It works fine with PHP4 and PHP5, bu
Marketing (Score:3, Interesting)
Surely it should also run better on all windows servers so why just 2008? Unless they're trying to find reasons for you to upgrade..
Re:Marketing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
-theGreater.
Re: (Score:2)
This is comparing Apache 2.2 in mpm-prefork mode with mod_php to IIS6 with FastCGI.
Re: (Score:2)
Changes to IIS, with related changes by Zend. Sounds like the two coordinated changes improve performance.
It ain't no workstation... (Score:1)
I do not know many people using Windows Server as a workstation...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe I should become one of the 75% to 80% of PHP developers who use this 'Windows' thing and see the difference myself.
Re: (Score:2)
The sentence you quoted says that the majority of PHP developers develop on a windows workstation, and then the sentence after the one you quoted says that most of these then deploy to a unix or linux.
Given that, what does your response: "I do not know many people using Windows Server as a workstation..." have to do with anything?
Re: (Score:2)
Please tag: nowyouhave2problems (Score:1)
PHP on Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
Just kidding. Seriously, though, it said "commercially supported form of PHP". Be sure to take a big mental note of that.
Commercial == fee's. Based on Zends track record of charging for things, it's not going to be cheap for single developers... I have a feeling it'll be in the area of $800-$1500 per CPU or something silly like that [zend.com]... in which case, why not just use a UNIX/derivative?
If you have to contact sales to find out the price (Score:5, Informative)
Then the answer is: "More than it's worth."
Windows tco winner! (Score:2)
Php guru: you need a windows zend license.
Boss: So if we pay somebody else it will work better in windows
Php guru: yes
Boss: Windows has great tco doesnt it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you get any relatively tested "CGI-compliant" environment and use it with that new FastCGI version, it should run just as well. Not just Zend's PHP, and heck, not just PHP at all, it will work with the others too.
Re: (Score:2)
Commercial == fee's.
Zend Core is free. Zend Core in essence is what a linux distro is to the linux kernel. It provides a certified single-installer toolchain (web server + php + db layer + zend framework).
What you can buy from them is a support package for Zend Core, to help you with installation, updating and bug resolving. Being able to pay someone else to deal with PHP performance and reliability is
Licensing Fees Don't Matter (Score:2)
Look, if you need silly density you can pay for Solaris licenses. If licensing fees matter to you, you run Linux/BSD. If licensing fees don't matter to you, you run Windows, if you like Windows. If you can afford licensing fees and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Commercial vendors. It's stupid, but people pay it.
ADD much?
Re: (Score:2)
Could you describe what features of Ruby and Python you think make them better suited for web development?
Re: (Score:2)
Why not Apache? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, but as for me, you won't see my LAMP become a WAMP anytime soon.
Re:Why not Apache? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In 2004-05, I wrote a PHP application for a client. We had agreed ahead of time that the app would be written in PHP. Upon delivery, everything worked great on the test (WIMP) server that I set up myself. When the technician was called in to put the application in production, he said no problem. I should point out that the fellow is a hard-core and experienced MCSE.
A month later, the application was not installed. I called the technician to find out what was happening, and I was given the story of be
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why not Apache? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
closed source = security through obscurity.
Let's not start this flameware / debate again.
Re: (Score:2)
So my question is: Why use 2 web servers when you can use only one, especially one thats already installed and locked down?
Re: (Score:2)
I just don't see the benefit of running PHP on Windows...what does [Microsoft say] the Windows platform offers for PHP that running it on freely available platforms doesn't?
On the IIS 7.0 platform, Microsoft offers LOTS to PHP (and Perl, Python, et al), chiefly though the integrated pipeline, which will allow you to do some very interesting things like build PHP pages and apps that make use of ASP.NET's Membership and Role APIs (or the Session or Application objects, for that matter). I don't know how many people will actually be writing "extensions" to PHP in C#, but it will be possible with IIS 7.
Optimised? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Honestly, though, I've always liked the British spelling of a lot of words as opposed to the Americanized version that I've grown up with. I seems classier in most instances.
Re: (Score:2)
But the rules are far stricter if you intend on writing for an audience that expect correctness (I don't write correctly for slashdot). Frankly, there are many more small rules than are really worth observing, such as past participles (learnt and earnt), split infinitives (never allowed
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Singular with an s-ending takes word+'s
Plural without an s-ending takes word+'s
Plural with an s-ending takes word+es'
The United Nations (and other singular entities with plural names) takes word+'s
Between this and contraction forms, it's pretty obvious why apostrophes are dyin
How is this an improvement? (Score:1)
but windows doesn't run as well as it did BEFORE
doesn't that mean that we're just back to square one?
Hmm (Score:2, Flamebait)
Horses for courses (Score:1)
75% to 80% of PHP users were developing on Windows (Score:1)
-- But how many of those scripts are being served from windows servers? I strongly suspect far less.
another prese (Score:2)
On the other hand, if there's a market segment used to paying somebody for their software, and paying every year to keep it running, wouldn't that be a great market
Re:another prese (Score:4, Informative)
You're probably perfectly aware that there are a large section of Linux using shops who are perfectly happy to pay, hence the success of RHEL and to a lesser extent SuSE and now Ubuntu all of which offer support around free stuff.
The fact that Zend has worked with IBM on PHP for i5 (AS400) and with Microsoft for decent PHP on Windows only increases the choice of platforms PHP developers have to deploy on, makes PHP projects more popular across other user bases and means that PHP developers have a wider range of employment opportunities available to them. I don't think anyone is under the illusion that the future of PHP development is at 6 person consultancies who specialize in tweaking free CMSs, surviving on that free good stuff and creating pure karma (with no disrespect to small web consultancies intended, but it's a limited niche to attract new active members to the community).
If you'd like to spend your time pitching PHP as a strategic application development option to Fortune 500 companies, government departments and other enterprises, I'm sure we'd all be delighted, but there's not much chance of you spending your time doing that, nor quite frankly of those entities listening to you. They do however talk to Zend.
Zend isn't imposing a cost/tax on anybody or demanding that people pay homage/tribute, especially as PHP is a community project and not owned by Zend. During the past 2 years Zend has increased the amount of free and open source work they've done (Zend Framework and the Eclipse-based PDT) so it's not like they take and don't give.
If there is value companies can get from Zend's solution set, then they will pay for it. And they do. It's simple cost-benefit equations. WRT your "siphoning off revenue" if you look at all the companies in the Open Source space (including MySQL, EZ Publish, Acquia and other) they all provide value adds.
And yeah, I work for Zend. And no, you don't have to buy our stuff (but at least come check it out). And no the decision to monetize PHP wasn't made by executives on the fringe of the FOSS world, but rather technology people in the middle of it. (I have no idea whether they have hair up their asses like you claim - but can gladly inform you that that's not a sound basis for a business strategy unless you're a barber looking for a niche....)
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody think the real agenda here is for Zend to better monetize PHP?
You do know that Zend PHP Core is free, right? You can pay Zend money if you want, but its only for support.
There is also Zend Framework, which is a big set of value-added packaging and large-deploy/enterprise features. That costs, but you're paying for the integrated packaging and support, not that you cant do those features any other way for free.
They've actually struck a good balance, I think.
Optimized double misery (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Optimise your spell check (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Optimise your spell check (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And it would make sense. Obviously tons and tons of people use Windows (and there are some decent web tools to complement the PHP developement, plus stuff like photoshop, etc), but PHP on Windows sucked ass. So obviously the hosting wouldn't be on Windows (most of the time).
Now with this, while you would not migrate a Linux box to a Windows one for PHP, if you just so happen to have a Windows Ser
Re: (Score:2)
The sentence clearly states that 75-80% of php developers develop on windows. But then 2 sentences later it says that the majority deploy to unix or linux.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm actually looking forward to IIS7. So long as it maintains a good security track record, I think it has a better chance with Apache than previous versions did.