I found few articles on the Internet that are suggesting use of ob_ functions, all of these emphase benefits, and there are no downsides of using functions mentioned.
My question is what are the downsides of using ob_ functions, or setting ini_set('output_buffering', '1'); ?
The cons of using output buffering entirely depend on the context of your usage.
One of the biggest cons of output buffering is your runtime error messages or warnings may get suppressed, and you may sometimes end up with erroneous data.
Consider this example:
<?php
function render_template() {
ob_start();
// Do some processing
fetch_template_and_render();
do_render();
// end capture
$output = ob_get_clean();
return $output;
}
memchace::set( $some_key, render_template() );
?>
If either of fetch_template_and_render or do_render throw run time errors, they will get dumped into your output, and eventually in this example will end up in the database or cache.
Here are 2 snippets that demonstrate what I mean which you can try for yourself
#1
<?php
echo 1/0;
?>
outputs
Warning: Division by zero on line 1
#2
<?php
ob_start();
echo 1/0;
$var = ob_get_clean();
?>
outputs nothing.
To avoid such cases, you will need to be diligent about error checking and take precautions.
When used diligently, ob_* functions are very powerful and super useful.
There are no major drawbacks, with proper implementation, to the use of output buffering.
Output buffering can allow errors/warnings/notices (except stop errors) to appear in the output without being readily apparent. This is typically resolved with proper error checking, better configuration of the php environment and the implementation of a good error handler (such as one that converts errors to ErrorExceptions which can be caught with try/catch - see Whoops! as an example of an error handler using ErrorExceptions).
Memory can possibly be a drawback, but the output size is typically insignificant for most scripts. An exception to this may be when sending large amounts of data, such as using fpassthru to deliver file content. This can be resolved by turning off the output buffering (ob_end_clean or ob_end_flush) before writing this content to the output.
Memory consumption is the most important drawback. I've recently built a PHP script that outputs a large chunk of XML data of several megabytes. The framework this 'page' was part of used output buffering. With output buffering, you need a memory buffer large enough to contain all the data. In my case it wasn't and the script failed.
If you output the data directly to the client, you don't have this problem. This is escpecially important in cases like this and when throughputting files. In case of generating a 'normal' HTML page, you will likely not use up the whole buffer, although you still need a lot of memory if you have many simultaneous requests.
Without buffering, the data is gone and doesn't trouble your server anymore. As long as the data is buffered, it can be changed or flushed, but actually puts a load on your server.
Here's a pretty good use for ob_ functions:
ob_start("ob_gzhandler");
Provided that the zlib extension is enabled in PHP, that should ensure your output is gz-compressed. It noticably speeds up page transfers for large pages.
Related
What is advantages of using ob_start()? What is its effects on performance? Say i have this code:
echo 'hello';
echo 'world';
compare to:
ob_start();
echo 'hello';
echo 'world';
ob_end_flush();
Which one has best performance and why?
The effect on performance is negligible.
Normally PHP renders line by line as instructions are executed. however once you have output buffering turned on by using ob_start() it means that php will buffer the output and not render it until you hit ob_end_flush()
This is used in case you need to do more processing before sending down the output to the client.
However...
Although output buffering does not affect the performance, you can use it cleverly to increase your website performance. have a look at here
I use the following code to create an image and encode it to base64. There is no direct output of the image.
ob_start(); // catching the output buffer
imagepng($imgSignature);
$base64Signature=base64_encode(ob_get_contents());
ob_end_clean();
ob_start started recently to throw error 500 and I have trouble figuring out the issue. The server uses php 5.4.11. I really don't know if it was running the same version as I installed the script, of if the memory runs full. I know that ob_start has changed throughout the php version. I really have a hard time to wrap my head around this. Is the script correct for php 5.4.11?
I really appreciate any help.
I'm not sure how to solve your issue with ob_start(), but I have an alternative for what you are doing that don't envolve output buffers.
imagepng($imgSignature, 'php://memory/file.png');
$base64Signature = base64_encode(file_get_contents('php://memory/file.png'));
This is basically saving the png image to a virtual temporary file that exists only in memory, then you read it back and have the same result.
My theory about your error:
At some point in your code, you will have this image stored multiple times in memory. In the $imgSignature, the internal buffer you created with ob_start(), the buffer you read with ob_get_contents(), and the resulting value of base64_encode(). Pretty much all in one line. God only knows how much memory its using, not to mention you probably allocated more resources before as you were mounting this image.
It is important to not have too much stuff allocated at the same time, specially when dealing with memory consuming resources like images. If you unset() or overwrite variables you no longer need, you will allow the garbage collector to do its job of disposing those unreferenced resources from memory.
For instance, you can change the way this piece of code was written to this:
ob_start();
imagepng($imgSignature);
imagedestroy($imgSignature);
$data = ob_get_contents();
ob_end_clean();
$data = base64_encode($data);
I dropped $imgSignature as soon as I didn't need it anymore, ended and cleaned my buffer as soon I was done getting what I wanted from it, and then disposed $data as I overwrote it with the base64 encoded $data that was really what I wanted.
Now this will use significantly less memory. If you extend this to the rest of your code, or do it at least to the parts that use a lot of memory like the images you loaded or created with the GD2 lib, it should optimize the memory usage of your script giving you that extra space you need.
This is a sample code from the book I am reading:
ob_start();
include("{$path}.ini");
$string = ob_get_contents();
ob_end_clean();
$pairs = parse_ini_string($string);
My question is, how does ob_get_contents() know what to get contents from? ({$path}.ini in this situation)?
ob_get_contents simply gets the contents of the output buffer since you called ob_start(). Essentially, an output buffer in PHP catches anything that would have been output to the browser (excluding headers). It's useful in cases where you may need to filter some output, or you're using a PHP method (such as var_dump) that writes output directly to screen, and you would instead like the return value of the method in a string.
In this case, because you're include()ing the .ini file, it's contents will be essentially output to screen, and ob_get_contents() will get the content of the file.
If you were to put echo "I'm a little teapot short and stout"; underneath the include, this would also be included in $string after the body of the .ini file.
In your specific case, however, output buffering is an unnecessary overhead, simply use file_get_contents on the .ini file. I'm not sure why a book would even have this code in it at all.
The "ob" stands for "output buffer". When you call ob_start(), PHP reroutes all output (using echo, etc) to the output buffer. Then you can use the other ob_* functions to retrieve and/or clear the buffer contents.
In your example, it will buffer any output generated by the file referenced by "{$path}.ini". When you include it, its output is added to the buffer, and when you call ob_get_contents(), it retrieves the contents of the buffer.
From PHP:
ob_start — Turn on output buffering
ob_get_contents — Return the contents of the output buffer
ob_end_clean — Clean (erase) the output buffer and turn off output buffering
Now, ob_get_contents can collect all buffer that outputted.
[1] http://www.php.net/manual/en/book.outcontrol.php
ob_get_contents() is getting everything that is echoed after calling ob_start() function, so there is not anything special about {$path}.ini - you are required to echo data you want to collect (yes, even outputs of simple echo or print_r calls will be collected - sometimes useful for debugging simple scripts).
You may understand ob_start() function as a simple redirection from screen to (invisible) PHP internal buffer which is later read by ob_get_contents(). So you will be able to redirect anything that you may see on the screen without calling ob_start() function (even the whole web pages).
In my website(running with drupal) the ob_flush function takes a long time(between 10 - 100 secs) to be executed. How do I find out why? What can cause this so long time?
Try this:
ob_start();
//Your code to generate the output
$result = ob_get_contents(); //save the contents of output buffer to a string
ob_end_clean();
echo $result;
It is run quick for me.
[You may want to tag your question with Drupal, since this feels like it might be a Drupal issue. Specifically, I suspect that when you flush the buffer, you're writing to an outer buffer, which triggers a ton of hooks to be called to filter the data you've just written.]
I suspect that your problem is nested buffers. Drupal really likes buffers and buffers everything all over the place. Check the result of:
echo "<pre>\nBuffering level: ";
. ob_get_level() .
. "\nBuffer status:\n"
. var_dump(ob_get_status(TRUE))
. "\n</pre>";
If you've got nested buffers, then I suspect ob_flush() will do nothing for you: it just appends the contents of your inner buffer into the next outermost layer of buffering.
Nested buffers can come from Drupal itself (which the above will show), or from the settings for zlib-output-compression and output_buffering (try twiddling those, see if it changes anything).
If your buffers are not nested, and the above settings do not help, then you may also want to split the operation into pieces, and run the profiler there, to see which part is taking the time:
$data = ob_get_contents(); // Return the contents of the output buffer.
ob_clean(); // Clean (erase) the output buffer.
ob_end(); // Close the buffer.
echo($data); // Output our data - only works if there's no outer buffer!
ob_start(); // Start our buffer again.
The question then becomes, though, "what are you trying to accomplish?" What do you think ob_flush() is doing here? Because if the answer is "I want to push everything I've done so far to the browser"... then I'm afraid that ob_flush() just isn't the right way.
SET
output_buffering = Off
in php.ini
use
<?ob_start();?>
at the beginning of the page and
<?ob_flush();?>
at the end of the page, to solve this problem.
I'd like to run include on a string rather than a file, but an unaware of how to achieve this.
//This is the desired functionality
include($filename);
//But I want to do something like this instead.
$file_contents = getFileFromCacheOrSomewhereElse($filename);
include($file_contents); // Doens't work...
eval($file_contents); // Also incorrect.
Please note: "eval" is not the same as include -- "include" echos out the contents of the file (and executes any PHP tags) while "eval" executes the string as PHP code.
An example use case is loading a template file from Memcache (as a string), then running include on that string, rather than running include and relying on PHP filecache.
If you can turn on the allow_url_fopen and allow_url_include php.ini settings, then an alternative is the data stream wrapper (manual).
include 'data:text/plain,' . urlencode($file_contents);
eval("?>" . $file_contents . "<?php ");
does it.
Storing PHP code in the memcache is not the best idea.
And evaling it thereafter is even worse.
Any opcode cache, APC or EAccelerator will cache your PHP files on the fly, with no strange efforts like this, and even parse it for the faster execution.
EDIT. Given the voting results after all these years, I assume that this question is attracting only noobs, who have the same strange whim. So I have to repeat: although it defeats your brilliant idea,
just leave your includes as is
They will be cached much better and executed much faster by the internal PHP's opcode cache.