Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 844E2200C53 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 12:55:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 82D98160B9B; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 10:55:12 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id C9D06160B89 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 12:55:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 81331 invoked by uid 500); 11 Apr 2017 10:55:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@flex.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@flex.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@flex.apache.org Received: (qmail 81314 invoked by uid 99); 11 Apr 2017 10:55:10 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 10:55:10 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 3C2001AF940 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 10:55:10 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.193 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.193 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=2, NUMERIC_HTTP_ADDR=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URI_HEX=1.313] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd2-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tuEsKnwuWcPT for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 10:55:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yw0-f182.google.com (mail-yw0-f182.google.com [209.85.161.182]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 180375FBA0 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 10:55:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw0-f182.google.com with SMTP id r128so6464457ywg.2 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 03:55:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Z3glzuriSSMw4VgaVS84HGhnsuCsBjIs13B7b5jzj5c=; b=uX1rqIOQRlagQsBRgY5Xflb61ggrcbJ6dy3Nys7cuH+yyxwoMCKrgzArmq0/0N0kn1 9qkvYYPH4sdP2xSopNYaBa+FgFxcgAuRTmljAKP70C20OBl07y3H23wjFG616TKTchdI CEfn5CoMpi3VH0k0YXf/ydsQA5MCkVwDf8d3UmGVxAdPblbJlErTeQVkRyHNH38n6hDM G+2KVp4wOXaSPwl7XzGMa2VcJ0FTeqpG4ExgDmaP96mQsmaYttBYjlMFEJyIVD2smZi9 k4xJkCXjLisGTHL2L7Yu0enEM4kls4HUmGcwMPjRW5EUhWr6uHizp1N6vXPBb9Li+1jn Pvkw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=Z3glzuriSSMw4VgaVS84HGhnsuCsBjIs13B7b5jzj5c=; b=GmdWP4P6V1iRy+L4se2ESbzer9JK0GwsNASDJsbIGp4yo1QK2fLvgfuMNeUtrhd9Ln ctG3wg2J7s4PQmiK0fU8lAYErIbfhZK0VWHmG+VbUchKkrvKlh8C3US9iJrADYyAXQNL Yw9iPqxRhAkH9O6pdLYGdiAjaet0rfFFqbLsU5cTiUi8HzusGqUPDOTTTMu+SK018OhM sMxd5VzabnUzQt2crAwCulNT3Zsu8+7lUSL0TPnrvuiPMlmVy7htqyUxmIVVrN+WhkXC giiyx0epGv746HiT8Y26W1AeuFR8HT3IorcXdf9Q+odTwLXqDZUBrVvfgSvideR0Dbfc X4Yw== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0v64m1edlChxJe1QDbgYS5LVyAolHNeqjmhTQNtQlDa4lv/67VOj/0am+Fuj4QFgvjkxGzS/KqXzYabg== X-Received: by 10.129.70.85 with SMTP id t82mr42098691ywa.250.1491908101997; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 03:55:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.129.70.8 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 03:55:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1491873702000-15015.post@n4.nabble.com> References: <1491873702000-15015.post@n4.nabble.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Fr=C3=A9deric_Cox?= Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 12:55:01 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: PHP Service Efficiency To: users@flex.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114d74ce750ac1054ce1ec62 archived-at: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 10:55:12 -0000 --001a114d74ce750ac1054ce1ec62 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I think this is a question that is better suited for stackoverflow. On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 3:21 AM, bilbosax wrote: > This is just a little theoretical question I have wondered about, so I > thought I would ask it here. I am writing an app that I hope will have at > least 10k users daily. When you set up your services, you can technically > put them all in a single PHP file if you want to, or spread them out across > several files that are more specific, however you want to do it. But I am > curious, if I have 10k users trying to access a single PHP file instead of > having the workload spread across several PHP files, will this cause a > bottleneck, and will I lose efficiency. > > I have no idea how PHP handles multiple users. Does anybody know if the > workload will be handled more efficiently if the PHP services are spread > across multiple files rather than one big one? > > Thanks for any insight. > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://apache-flex-users. > 2333346.n4.nabble.com/PHP-Service-Efficiency-tp15015.html > Sent from the Apache Flex Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > --001a114d74ce750ac1054ce1ec62--