apc vs eaccelerator vs xcache
我正在研究使用其中哪一个，但我真的找不到一个脱颖而出的。 Eaccelerator 比 APC，但APC维护得更好。 Xcache 速度更快，但其他语法更简单。
有人对使用哪些建议以及为什么使用有建议吗？
Im doing research on which one of these to use and I can't really find one that stands out. Eaccelerator is faster than APC, but APC is better maintained. Xcache is faster but the others have easier syntax.
Anyone have recommendations on which to use and why?
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（12）
如果您只想缓存 PHP 文件，可以直接使用 eAccelerator。 非常容易安装和配置，并且效果很好。
但是太糟糕了，他们从最新版本0.9.6中删除了eaccelerator_put和eaccelerator_put。
If you want PHP file caching only, you can use eAccelerator directly. Very easy to install and configure, and give great results.
But too bad, they removed the eaccelerator_put and eaccelerator_put from the latest version 0.9.6.
APC 整天整夜都出现段错误，没有使用 eAccelerator 的经验，但 XCache 非常可靠，有大量的选项和不断的开发。
APC segfaults all day and all night, got no experience with eAccelerator but XCache is very reliable with loads of options and constant development.
APC 将包含在 PHP 6 中，我猜选择它是有充分理由的:)
它相当容易安装，而且肯定会加快速度。
APC is going to be included in PHP 6, and I'd guess it has been chosen for good reason :)
It's fairly easy to install and certainly speeds things up.
查看基准和比较：
此处
和这里< /a>
和那里
Check out benchmarks and comparisons:
here
and here
and there
绝对是APC。 它是由 PHP 人员编写的，因此即使它可能没有最高的速度，但您可以打赌它的质量是最高的。
另外，您还可以获得我一直使用的其他一些漂亮功能（http://www.php.net/apc）。
APC definitely. It's written by the PHP guys, so even though it might not share the highest speeds, you can bet on the fact it's the highest quality.
Plus you get some other nifty features I use all the time (http://www.php.net/apc).
最后我选择了 eAccelerator - 速度的提升、更小的内存占用以及安装非常简单的事实让我动摇了。 它还有一个很好的基于网络的前端来清除缓存并提供一些统计数据。
事实上，它不再被维护对我来说不是问题——它有效，这就是我所关心的。 将来，如果它破坏了 PHP6（或其他），那么我将重新评估我的决定，可能会选择 APC，因为它已被 PHP 开发人员采用（所以应该更容易安装）
In the end I went with eAccelerator - the speed boost, the smaller memory footprint and the fact that is was very easy to install swayed me. It also has a nice web-based front end to clear the cache and provide some stats.
The fact that its not maintained anymore is not an issue for me - it works, and that's all I care about. In the future, if it breaks PHP6 (or whatever), then I'll re-evaluate my decision and probably go with APC simply because its been adopted by the PHP developers (so should be even easier to install)
我在 WordPress 站点上使用 Apache、Lighttp 和 Nginx 测试了 eAccelerator 和 XCache。 eAccelerator 每次都会获胜。
缺点是缺少 Debian 和 Ubuntu 的软件包。 PHP 更新后，如果不重新编译 eAccelerator 模块，服务器通常将不再工作。
eAccelerator 最后一个 RC 是从 2009/07/15 (0.9.6 rc1) 开始，支持 PHP 5.3
I tested eAccelerator and XCache with Apache, Lighttp and Nginx with a Wordpress site. eAccelerator wins every time.
The bad thing is only the missing packages for Debian and Ubuntu. After a PHP update often the server doesn't work anymore if the eAccelerator modules are not recompiled.
eAccelerator last RC is from 2009/07/15 (0.9.6 rc1) with support for PHP 5.3
我总是将 APC 与 php 5.1 和 5.2 一起使用，但在将 APC 与 php 5.3 一起使用时遇到很多（随机）错误：奇怪的空白页、随机内存不足错误。 当我禁用 APC 时，它们都消失了。 但这是没有选择的，因为它正在运行一个大容量的网站。
所以我尝试了加速器。 到目前为止，它一直坚如磐石，速度提升甚至比 APC 还要大。 APC 人员确实需要花一些时间修复错误。
I always used APC with php 5.1 and 5.2, but I had a lot of (random) errors using APC with php 5.3: Strange blank pages, random out-of-memory errors. They all disappeared when I disabled APC. But that was no option, as it is running a high-volume website.
So I tried eaccelerator. So far it has been rock solid and the speed increase is even bigger than with APC. The APC guys really need to spend some time on bugfixing.
指出当前的稳定版本、不稳定版本和开发版本（包括日期）可能很重要：
APC
http: //pecl.php.net/package/apc
Xcache
http://xcache.lighttpd.net/
eAccelerator
https://github.com/eaccelerator/eaccelerator
It may be important to point out the current stable, unstable and dev versions of each (including date):
APC
http://pecl.php.net/package/apc
Xcache
http://xcache.lighttpd.net/
eAccelerator
https://github.com/eaccelerator/eaccelerator
在我见过的所有测试中，eAccelerator 的执行速度比任何其他缓存都快，并且使用的内存更少。 它带有一个漂亮的脚本来查看缓存利用率和清除缓存等。eAccelerator 与 xdebug 和 Zend Optimizer 兼容。
APC 包含在 PHP 中，因为它由 PHP 开发人员维护。 它的性能很好，但不如 eAccelerator。 而且它与 Zend Optimizer 存在兼容性问题。
Xcache是由lighttpd的开发人员制作的，基准测试显示它的性能与eAccelerator类似，并且比APC更快。
那么哪个是最好的呢？
APC = 如果您想要一个始终与 PHP 一起使用的简单缓存，那就太好了，没有什么大惊小怪的。
eAccelerator = 如果您有时间维护它，使其保持最新状态并了解其工作原理，它将执行得更快。 长期支持不像 APC 那样确定，因为 APC 是由 PHP 开发人员完成的。
In all tests I have seen, eAccelerator performs faster than any other cache out there and uses less memeory to do so. It comes with a nifty script to view cache utilisation and clear the cache etc. eAccelerator is compatible with xdebug and Zend Optimizer.
APC is being included in PHP because it is being maintained by the PHP developers. It performs very well, but not as good as eAccelerator. And it has compatability issues with Zend Optimizer.
Xcache was made by the developers of lighttpd, benchmarks show it performs similiarly to eAccelerator, and faster than APC.
So which is the best?
APC = Great if you want an easy cache that will always work with PHP, no fuss.
eAccelerator = If you have time to maintain it, keep it up todate and understand how it works, it will perform faster. Long term support not as certain as APC because APC is done by the PHP devs.
我认为除非您在网站上使用 Zend Optimizer，否则 APC 是最佳选择。 APC 与 Zend Optimizer 不兼容，因此在这种情况下，您将需要使用 eAccelerator 之类的东西。
I think APC is the way to go unless you are using Zend Optimizer on the site. APC is incompatible with Zend Optimizer so in that case you will need to go with something like eAccelerator.
即使 eacceleator 和 xcache 在中等负载下都表现得相当好，APC 在严重的请求强度下仍能保持稳定性。 如果我们在这里讨论几百个请求/秒，您将不会感觉到差异。 但如果您想做出更多回应，那么一定要坚持使用 APC。 特别是如果您的应用程序具有过度动态的特性，这可能会在此类负载下导致锁定问题。 http://www.ipsure。 com/blog/2011/eaccelerator-as-zend-extension-high-load-averages-issue/ 可能会有所帮助。
Even both eacceleator and xcache perform quite well during moderate loads, APC maintains its stability under serious request intensity. If we're talking about a few hundred requests/sec here, you'll not feel the difference. But if you're trying to respond more, definetely stick with APC. Especially if your application has overly dynamic characteristics which will likely cause locking issues under such loads. http://www.ipsure.com/blog/2011/eaccelerator-as-zend-extension-high-load-averages-issue/ may help.