Comments on: HipHop For PHP: Who Benefits, Who Doesn’t

By: terry chay

terry chay — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 01:38:59 +0000

Actually, Facebook is technically running more than one PHP application at the same time—when they release an update. What goes on is two HipHop servers are started and they are switched over at runtime using port takeover.

The basic issue is for HipHop to work, it has to survey the code of your entire application. If you have multiple applications you have to either build multiple binary projects (and multiple servers), or build it as a large single project. This means Digestivity’s use case is an explicity no-no in HipHop.

Similarly moronkreacionz is out since the whole thing is built “as a piece” and not as a library. The exception is if you’ve already isolated that part into a highly-cohesive unit that is loosely coupled via web API. In that case, you can just launch it “as-is” if it compiles at all.

By: moronkreacionz

moronkreacionz — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 13:08:13 +0000

I think @digitivityorg meant the same thing ?

By: moronkreacionz

moronkreacionz — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 13:06:40 +0000

Well, its exciting to see the efforts of such wonderful people.

@Brandon: I have a different query here:
How about just transforming userdefined-function-libraries/blocks of PHP code as extensions using Hiphop ?

Since most of the large traffic sites working with PHP would have diversified usage of libraries/database/memcached/file handling/caching mechanisms in place..

Would that be certainly handled in similar efficient way?

-Vj

By: Brandon Savage

Brandon Savage — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:46:41 +0000

Rasums actually tweeted about it. He mentioned that most people will run into typical bottlenecks like database or file system, and that HipHop probably wouldn’t help in that case.

By: Jordan Walker

Jordan Walker — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:05:45 +0000

I am interested to hear what Rasmus has to say.

By: Markus Wollny

Markus Wollny — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 13:15:46 +0000

I have to agree with @robo47. There shouldn’t be much of a problem using nginx’s reverse proxy feature or Apache’s mod_proxy to allow for per-host deployments, if necessary even on a per-directory basis. There will of course be a certain administration overhead and the performance gain when compared to a more conventional deployment that’s using an opcode-cache like eAccelerator or XCache may not be worth the hassle. So I think I’ll disagree on the assumption that anyone using a loadbalanced 1+x webserver setup will be well advised to jump on that train. This is a very special beast and it’s very likely that even if you’ve got a somewhat larger PHP deployment it is not for you.

By: robo47

robo47 — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 09:50:42 +0000

@brandonsavage
I don’t thinkcreating a VM for each app will really “help” here. It produces much more overhead, all standard-services + programs of the used server-os run X times (webserver, database-server, cron) instead of one, resulting in more cpu-usage and more memory-usage, the two things hiphop should lower. I don’t think it makes any sense to create VM’s just to run hiphop because you will propably lose a lot or all of the performance-gain. And for running a webserver in each VM you will too need at least one IP for each VM to have it’s own Port 80 for the webserver.

A simple reverse-proxy setup (lighttpd, nginx, apache, … )? saves resources and since in my opinion a webserver doesn’t have to be “reverse-proxy-usable” there isn’t any explicit design-thing for hiphop to be able to be used behind a reverse-proxy.

By: Digitivity @ The Digital Life & Tools Blog

Digitivity @ The Digital Life & Tools Blog — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:48:10 +0000

Is it clear at this time if HipHop integrates seamlessly with an existing PHP installation + web application?

I.e., you could have most of your application compiled, and then if you want to add a page (or class) or two, you could just add it in a .php file until you can get around to re-compiling and replacing the whole app.

By: Brandon Savage

Brandon Savage — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:37:54 +0000

@Joel, I think that’s certainly an option. I didn’t mention it outright, mostly due to the fact that the released version isn’t explicitly designed to do that. Bear in mind that Facebook’s use case was high-traffic web servers that serve unique content on each page view, and for high-traffic sites I think this is a fantastic use case.

Your better bet might be what was suggested above, creating a VM for each app and running it that way.

By: php/ajax

php/ajax — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:33:35 +0000

I was just thinking that it would be great if it was possible to load HipHop’s c++ binaries in the same way we can include .phar and .php files

The one thing is that we they will have to security checks to make sure that the c++ extensions executed inside a sandbox.

By: Joel Clermont

Joel Clermont — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:32:38 +0000

What would prevent someone from running multiple apps on a box on different ports than using Squid in reverse proxy mode to direct internally to the right port? Definitely not going to work in shared hosting, but for those of us running our own servers with a couple dozen “medium”-sized sites, this isn’t a deal breaker. Thoughts?

By: Sjan Evardsson

Sjan Evardsson — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:08:07 +0000

I was disappointed by the “one application at a time” piece of this. I was hoping for something a little more modular and capable of being used across multiple applications on one server.

That being said, if I could move all my legacy apps to their own VM and set up a new VM for each new app we build … (gears turning here.)

While I am an early adopter in many ways, this is one that I will have to see play out a bit first. I will likely set up some test apps in VMs and see what kind of gains I can manage, and see how it affects the build -> test -> deploy -> update -> test -> deploy (ad infinitum) cycle.