It seems that PHP has two memcached libraries named memcache and memcached. What is the difference and how do you know which one to use? Is one outdated? It seems that memcached offers more methods so I would assume that means it has had the most development - but it also seems to require external C/C++ libraries so I'm not sure if I can install it.
It seems that memcache has been around longer, does not require additional libraries, and has pre-compiled binaries for even windows! I would think that it would be the better choice for now. However, being new to memcached (server) I'm not sure if there is some super important features in memcached (php) that make it worth the extra trouble.
Memcached client library was just recently released as stable. It is being used by digg ( was developed for digg by Andrei Zmievski, now no longer with digg) and implements much more of the memcached protocol than the older memcache client. The most important features that memcached has are:
Cas tokens. This made my life much easier and is an easy preventive system for stale data. Whenever you pull something from the cache, you can receive with it a cas token (a double number). You can than use that token to save your updated object. If no one else updated the value while your thread was running, the swap will succeed. Otherwise a newer cas token was created and you are forced to reload the data and save it again with the new token.
Read through callbacks are the best thing since sliced bread. It has simplified much of my code.
getDelayed() is a nice feature that can reduce the time your script has to wait for the results to come back from the server.
While the memcached server is supposed to be very stable, it is not the fastest. You can use binary protocol instead of ASCII with the newer client.
Whenever you save complex data into memcached the client used to always do serialization of the value (which is slow), but now with memcached client you have the option of using igbinary. So far I haven't had the chance to test how much of a performance gain this can be.
All of this points were enough for me to switch to the newest client, and can tell you that it works like a charm. There is that external dependency on the libmemcached library, but have managed to install it nonetheless on Ubuntu and Mac OSX, so no problems there so far.
If you decide to update to the newer library, I suggest you update to the latest server version as well as it has some nice features as well. You will need to install libevent for it to compile, but on Ubuntu it wasn't much trouble.
I haven't seen any frameworks pick up the new memcached client thus far (although I don't keep track of them), but I presume Zend will get on board shortly.
UPDATE
Zend Framework 2 has an adapter for Memcached which can be found here
When using Windows, the comparison is cut short: memcache appears to be the only client available.
Memcached is a newer API, it also provides memcached as a session provider which could be great if you have a farm of server.
After the version is still really low 0.2 but I have used both and I didn't encounter major problem, so I would go to memcached since it's new.
This is 2013. Forget about the 2009 comments. Likewise, if you are running serious traffic loads, do not even contemplate how to make-do with a windows based memcache.
When dealing with a very large scale (500+ front end web servers) and 20+ back end database servers and replicants (mysql & mssql mix), a farm of memcached servers (12 servers in group) supports multiple high volume OLTP applications answering 25K ~ 40K mc->get calls per-second. These calls are those that do NOT have to reach a database.
IMHO, this use of memcached provided SERIOUS $$$,$$$savings on CAPEX for new DB servers & licences as well as on support contracts for large commercial designs.
Related
We try to deploy APC user-cache in a high load environment as local 2nd-tier cache on each server for our central caching service (redis), for caching database queries with rarely changing results, and configuration. We basically looked at what Facebook did (years ago):
http://www.slideshare.net/guoqing75/4069180-caching-performance-lessons-from-facebook
http://www.slideshare.net/shire/php-tek-2007-apc-facebook
It works pretty well for some time, but after some hours under high load, APC runs into problems, so the whole mod_php does not execute any PHP anymore.
Even a simple PHP script with only does not answer anymore, while static resources are still delivered by Apache. It does not really crash, there is no segfault. We tried the latest stable and latest beta of APC, we tried pthreads, spin locks, every time the same problem. We provided APC with far more memory it can ever consume, 1 minute before a crash we have 2% fragmentation and about 90% of the memory is free. When it „crashes“ we don’t find nothing in error logs, only restarting Apache helps. Only with spin locks we get an php error which is:
PHP Fatal error: Unknown: Stuck spinlock (0x7fcbae9fe068) detected in
Unknown on line 0
This seems to be a kind of timeout, which does not occur with pthreads, because those don’t use timeouts.
What’s happening is probably something like that:
http://notmysock.org/blog/php/user-cache-timebomb.html
Some numbers: A server has about 400 APC user-cache hits per second and about 30 inserts per second (which is a lot I think), one request has about 20-100 user-cache requests. There are about 300.000 variables in the user-cache, all with ttl (we store without ttl only in our central redis).
Our APC-settings are:
apc.shm_segments=1
apc.shm_size=4096M
apc.num_files_hint=1000
apc.user_entries_hint=500000
apc.max_file_size=2M
apc.stat=0
Currently we are using version 3.1.13-beta compiled with spin locks, used with an old PHP 5.2.6 (it’s a legacy app, I’ve heard that this PHP version could be a problem too?), Linux 64bit.
It's really hard to debug, we have written monitoring scripts which collect as much data as we could get every minute from apc, system etc., but we cannot see anything uncommon - even 1 minute before a crash.
I’ve seen a lot of similar problems here, but by now we couldn’t find a solution which solves our problem yet. And when I read something like that:
http://webadvent.org/2010/share-and-enjoy-by-gopal-vijayaraghavan
I’m not sure if going with APC for a local user-cache is the best idea in high load environments. We already worked with memcached here, but APC is a lot faster. But how to get it stable?
best regards,
Andreas
Lesson 1: https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/spinlocks.txt
The single spin-lock primitives above are by no means the only ones. They
are the most safe ones, and the ones that work under all circumstances,
but partly because they are safe they are also fairly slow. They are slower
than they'd need to be, because they do have to disable interrupts
(which is just a single instruction on a x86, but it's an expensive one -
and on other architectures it can be worse).
That's written by Linus ...
Spin locks are slow; that assertion is not based on some article I read online by facebook, but upon the actual facts of the matter.
It's also, an incidental fact, that spinlocks are deployed at levels higher than the kernel because of the very problems you speak of; untraceable deadlocks because of a bad implementation.
They are used by the kernel efficiently, because that's where they were designed to be used, locking tiny tiny tiny sections, not sitting around and waiting for you to copy your amazon soap responses into apc and back out a billion times a second.
The most suitable kind of locking (for the web, not the kernel) available in APC is definitely rwlocks, you have to enable rwlocks with a configure option in legacy APC and it is the default in APCu.
The best advice that can be given, and I already gave it, is don't use spinlocks, if mutex are causing your stack to deadlock then try rwlocks.
Before I continue, your main problem is you are using a version of PHP from antiquity, which nobody even remembers how to support, in general you should look to upgrade, I'm aware of the constraints on the OP, but it would be irresponsible to negate to mention that this is a real problem, you do not want to deploy on unsupported software. Additionally APC is all but unmaintained, it is destined to die. O+ and APCu are it's replacement in modern versions of PHP.
Anyway, I digress ...
Synchronization is a headache when you are programming at the level of the kernel, with spinlocks, or whatever. When you are several layers removed from the kernel, when you rely on 6 or 7 bits of complicated software underneath you synchronizing properly in order that your code can synchronize properly synchronization becomes, not only a headache for the programmer, but for the executor too; it can easily become the bottleneck of your shiny web application even if there are no bugs in your implementation.
Happily, this is the year 2013, and Yahoo aren't the only people able to implement user caches in PHP :)
http://pecl.php.net/package/yac
This is an, extremely clever, lockless cache for userland PHP, it's marked as experimental, but once you are finished, have a play with it, maybe in another 7 years we won't be thinking about synchronization issues :)
I hope you get to the bottom of it :)
Unless you are on a freebsd derived operating system it is not a good idea to use spinlocks, they are the worst kind of synchronization on the face of the earth. The only reason you must use them in freebsd is because the implementer negated to include PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED support for mutex and rwlocks, so you have little choice but to use the pg-sql inspired spin lock in that case.
i need to caching xml and json response requested to a remote host. Is There a simple Cache System developed in PHP?
If you are looking to get up and running right away, you can use APC, which is installed (or can be easily installed) with PHP, depending on what platform you are running PHP on. Then you can use the apc_add() function call to add keys into the cache.
Example:
<?php
$bar = 'BAR';
apc_add('foo', $bar);
?>
You can then use apc_exists() and apc_fetch() to check and fetch items out of the cache.
Obviously if your requirements are more complex, you may want to take a look at Memcached
PHP itself can't cache because it is interpreted at request time - there isn't any in-memory caching capabilities naively available. If you have control over the web server, you may be able to install APC cache. see this for a little info on how to use API. If not, you can check if that extension is installed (in my experience, not may hosts have this installed), ask for it to be installed, or simply grow your own (see below).
APC cache is a simple file-based caching mechanism that provides some neat facilities to expunge caches that grow old. You can build this yourself using the standard PHP library if APC isn't available (or you're doing something really simple). If you have to roll your own, use the above like as an implementation guide - build in the features you need and leave out what you don't. =)
In 2009-07-07 was released the first stable of memcached, the php library based on libmemcached.
Now you have two options (in php) memcache or memcached.
memcache is the usual one, but memcached promise many improvements over the other one: one of my favorites are fact of use libketama for keys which allow sharing keys between languages (like Ruby, Python, etc.)
so, did you have a chance to use/test it, do you feel is it ready for a live enviroment?
Edit: the reason I ask this is because move from one driver to other means a great effort that I'm not sure to yet.
The old C library libmemcache.so had some serious bugs and leaks. The new C library libmemcached.so, which is the basis of PHP memcached, was written specifically to not have those bugs and leaks, and also has significant performance improvements. It is also under active maintenance.
I have been using the new version of memcached since it came out. I have written about that just a few hours ago here on stackoverflow.
When should I use Memcache instead of Memcached?
I haven't seen any implementations in frameworks of the new API, but I usually write and use my own. There are some subtle differences between the clients, but if your code is well designed your shouldn't have much problems moving to the new client.
So to answer your question, yes I think it is time to move the new library. If you do, be sure to update to the newest server version as well as it also has some nice new features (not to mention bugfixes).
A friend has recommended that I install php APC, claiming it will help php run faster and use less memory
sounds promising but I'm a little nervous about adding it to my VPS server
I have one small app that I've built using codeigniter, and several sites that use the popular slideshowpro photo gallery software
could install this break any of the back end code on my sites?
I'm no high tech server guy, but should I give this a try?
Depends entirely on your situation.
Is your site unresponsive or slow at the moment? Is this definitely due to the PHP scripts and not any other data sources such as a database or remote API?
If you answered yes to the above, then installing one of the many PHP accelerators out there would be a good shout. As for using less memory, that's largely dependent on your apache/lightppd/nginx config and php.ini variables.
Most PHP accelerators work by converting the (to be) interpreted PHP code into opcode. This is then stored in memory (RAM) for fast access. If you haven't already implemented file-based caching in CodeIgniter then the benefits of installing a PHP accelerator would be noticeable. If you haven't, then I suggest you do that first before moving straight over to (wasting?) spending time trying to install APC manually.
If your site is currently performing well and you're not too confident in your *nix skills then I suggest you try implementing CodeIgniter caching first rather than try messing with what is an already working VPS.
My personal preference is PHP eAccelerator.
Should installing a PHP cache engine not improve your site's performance then I suggest you look at what other factors influence your application. As stated above, these could be: database or API to name a few.
Hope this helps.
APC is basically a cache engine that stores your compiled php scripts on a temp location on your server. Meaning that these do not have to be interpreted every time someone calls your sccript. It is a PHP extension can can safely be turned ON or OFF and it does not affect your actual code. So... do not fear!
When a php script is processed, there is a compilation phase, where php converts the source code of the php files into "opcodes". APC simply caches the result of this compilation phase, so it should be safe to turn on.
That said, when making such changes to production code it is always wise to run a regression test to ensure no new issues have been introduced.
I have started having problems with my VPS in the way that it would faill to serve the pages on all the websites. It just showed a blank page, or offered to download the php file ( luckily the code was not in the download file :) ).
The server was still running, but this seemed to be a problem with PHP, since i could login into WHM.
If i did a apache restart, the sites would work again.
After some talks with the server support they told me this is a problem with the APC extension witch they considered to be old and not recommended for production servers. So they removed it for now, to see if the same kind of fails would continue to appear.
I haven't read anywhere that APC could have some problems or that its not always recommended to use, quite the contrary ... everywhere people are saying to always use it.
The APC extension was installed ssh and is the latest version.
Edit:
They also dont recomend MemCache and say that a more reliable extension would be eAccelerator
Um APC is current tech and almost a must for any performant PHP site.
Not only that but it will ship as standard in PHP 6 (rather than being an optional module like it is now).
I don't know what your issue is/was but it's not APC being outdated or old tech.
I run several servers myself and the only time I have ever had trouble with APC was when trying to run it concurrently with Zend Optimizer. They don't work together so if I must use Optimizer (like if some commercial, third-party code requires it) I run eAccelerator instead of APC. Effectively 6 of one, half-dozen of another when it comes to performance but I really doubt APC is the problem here.
Just to add, memcached is only going to benefit you greatly if you are running multiple servers which need to access a shared data cache. Memcached does not do opcode caching like APC/eAccelerator/Xcache/etc.
The problem is not to do with APC. If APC had a problem, it would either show up in your php log file or you simply wouldn't be able to access your website until you adjusted APC. The problem is more likely with apache itself. I've experience the same problem as you with blank pages before and it was to do with mod_security playing up and preventing pages from being sent that looked "suspicious". Also, memory usage in apache is good at killing the server under load. I've also had experience with a web host that had compiled apache with a memory leak so every X amount of requests (say 100,000) the server would crash! Most annoying.
Your web host doesn't sound the most competent out there as they are giving some bad advice, most likely based on ignorance.
APC should be used on production (with the mstat check turned off on production, but on for development). You can get more stats about your apc setup while it's working by loading the apc status file that comes with it and you get a nice page like this: http://drupal.org/files/images/APC%20Status-1.png
Memcache is very heavily used as it's also distributed! The use for such is as follows:
APC is the fastest as it works most closely to php, but only works on the same server executing the PHP itself so it's use is limited in that scope. Used primarily as an opcode cache.
Memcache is like a very fast database spread over many computers working as one unit. However, a powercut will wipe the lot!!! Hence why they are heavily used to remove preasure from the persistant database. Facebook and many other sites have hundreds of servers running memcache.
My advice would be to find a web host that understands PHP. Fighting web hosts is hard work about whos right and whos wrong... until you find a good one ;)
Sounds to me like they are pushing a product that they probably have referral kickbacks on.
I run my own servers (have for a while) and I've never had this problem, not any MAJOR problems with MemCache.