blocks|key|1288519|text|APC将包含在PHP6中，我猜选择它是有很好的理由的:)|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1288520|它相当容易安装，当然也加快了速度。|1288521|entityMap^0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|F|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|G|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|-4|5|6|7|H|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|E|$]]

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.

blocks|key|1290165|text|查看基准测试和比较：|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1290166|here、here和there|offset|length|1290167|entityMap|0|LINK|mutability|MUTABLE|url|http://www.ducea.com/2006/10/30/php-accelerators/|1|http://2bits.com/articles/benchmarking-drupal-with-php-op-code-caches-apc-eaccelerator-and-xcache-compared.html|2|http://2bits.com/articles/benchmarking-apc-vs-eaccelerator-using-drupal.html^0|0|0|4|0|5|4|1|A|5|2|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|R|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|S|8|@]|9|@$D|T|E|U|1|V]|$D|W|E|X|1|Y]|$D|Z|E|10|1|11]]|A|$]]|$1|F|3|-4|5|6|7|12|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|G|$H|$5|I|J|K|A|$L|M]]|N|$5|I|J|K|A|$L|O]]|P|$5|I|J|K|A|$L|Q]]]]

Check out benchmarks and comparisons:

<a href="http://www.ducea.com/2006/10/30/php-accelerators/" rel="noreferrer">here</a>
and <a href="http://2bits.com/articles/benchmarking-drupal-with-php-op-code-caches-apc-eaccelerator-and-xcache-compared.html" rel="noreferrer">here</a>
and <a href="http://2bits.com/articles/benchmarking-apc-vs-eaccelerator-using-drupal.html" rel="noreferrer">there</a>

blocks|key|1288563|text|当然是APC。它是由PHP人员编写的，所以即使它可能没有共享最高的速度，你也可以打赌它是最高质量的。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1288564|另外，你还可以获得一些我一直在使用的漂亮特性(http://www.php.net/apc)。|offset|length|1288565|entityMap|0|LINK|mutability|MUTABLE|url|http://www.php.net/apc^0|0|N|M|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|N|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|O|8|@]|9|@$D|P|E|Q|1|R]]|A|$]]|$1|F|3|-4|5|6|7|S|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|G|$H|$5|I|J|K|A|$L|M]]]]

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 (<a href="http://www.php.net/apc" rel="noreferrer">http://www.php.net/apc</a>).

blocks|key|850078|text|最后我选择了eAccelerator+-速度的提升，更小的内存占用，以及它非常容易安装的事实动摇了我。它也有一个很好的基于web的前端来清除缓存并提供一些统计数据。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|850079|它不再维护的事实对我来说不是问题-它是有效的，这就是我所关心的。将来，如果它破坏了PHP6+(或其他任何东西)，我会重新评估我的决定，可能只是因为它被PHP开发人员采用了(所以应该更容易安装)|850080|entityMap^0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|F|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|G|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|-4|5|6|7|H|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|E|$]]

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)

blocks|key|850420|text|指出每个版本的当前稳定、不稳定和开发版本(包括日期)可能很重要：|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|850421|APC|850422|http://pecl.php.net/package/apc|offset|length|850423|dev++++++++dev++++++++++2013-09-12
3.1.14+++++beta+++++++++2013-01-02
3.1.9++++++stable+++++++2011-05-14|code-block|syntax|javascript|850424|Xcache|850425|http://xcache.lighttpd.net/|850426|dev/3.2+++++dev++++++++2013-12-13
dev/3.1+++++dev++++++++2013-11-05
3.1.0+++++++stable+++++2013-10-10
3.0.4+++++++stable+++++2013-10-10|850427|eAccelerator|850428|https://github.com/eaccelerator/eaccelerator|850429|dev+++++++++dev++++++++2012-08-16
0.9.6-rc1+++unstable+++2010-01-26
0.9.5.1+++++stable+++++2007-05-16|850430|entityMap|0|LINK|mutability|MUTABLE|url|1|2^0|0|0|0|V|0|0|0|0|0|R|1|0|0|0|0|18|2|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|17|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|18|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|6|7|19|8|@]|9|@$F|1A|G|1B|1|1C]]|A|$]]|$1|H|3|I|5|J|7|1D|8|@]|9|@]|A|$K|L]]|$1|M|3|N|5|6|7|1E|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|O|3|P|5|6|7|1F|8|@]|9|@$F|1G|G|1H|1|1I]]|A|$]]|$1|Q|3|R|5|J|7|1J|8|@]|9|@]|A|$K|L]]|$1|S|3|T|5|6|7|1K|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|U|3|V|5|6|7|1L|8|@]|9|@$F|1M|G|1N|1|1O]]|A|$]]|$1|W|3|X|5|J|7|1P|8|@]|9|@]|A|$K|L]]|$1|Y|3|-4|5|6|7|1Q|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|Z|$10|$5|11|12|13|A|$14|E]]|15|$5|11|12|13|A|$14|P]]|16|$5|11|12|13|A|$14|V]]]]

It may be important to point out the current stable, unstable and dev versions of each (including date):

<h2>APC</h2>

<a href="http://pecl.php.net/package/apc" rel="noreferrer">http://pecl.php.net/package/apc</a>

<pre><code>dev dev 2013-09-12
3.1.14 beta 2013-01-02
3.1.9 stable 2011-05-14
</code></pre>

<h2>Xcache</h2>

<a href="http://xcache.lighttpd.net/" rel="noreferrer">http://xcache.lighttpd.net/</a>

<pre><code>dev/3.2 dev 2013-12-13
dev/3.1 dev 2013-11-05
3.1.0 stable 2013-10-10
3.0.4 stable 2013-10-10
</code></pre>

<h2>eAccelerator</h2>

<a href="https://github.com/eaccelerator/eaccelerator" rel="noreferrer">https://github.com/eaccelerator/eaccelerator</a>

<pre><code>dev dev 2012-08-16
0.9.6-rc1 unstable 2010-01-26
0.9.5.1 stable 2007-05-16
</code></pre>

blocks|key|4068190|text|在我见过的所有测试中，eAccelerator的执行速度都比其他任何缓存都要快，而且使用的内存也更少。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。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|4068191|APC包含在PHP中，因为它是由PHP开发人员维护的。它的性能非常好，但不如eAccelerator好。而且它与Zend+Optimizer存在兼容性问题。|4068192|Xcache是由lighttpd的开发人员开发的，基准测试表明它的性能与eAccelerator相似，但比APC更快。|4068193|那么哪一个是最好的呢？|4068194|APC+=很棒如果你想要一个简单的缓存，并且总是可以和PHP一起工作，不用大惊小怪。eAccelerator+=如果您有时间维护它，使其保持最新，并了解它是如何工作的，它将执行得更快。长期的支持不像APC那样确定，因为APC是由PHP开发人员完成的。|4068195|entityMap^0|0|0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|L|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|M|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|6|7|N|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|F|3|G|5|6|7|O|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|H|3|I|5|6|7|P|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|J|3|-4|5|6|7|Q|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|K|$]]

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.

blocks|key|4913234|text|我用Apache、Lighttp和Nginx在Wordpress站点上测试了eAccelerator和XCache。eAccelerator每次都会赢。糟糕的是，只有Debian和Ubuntu的包丢失了。在PHP更新之后，如果不重新编译eAccelerator模块，服务器通常不再工作。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|4913235|eAccelerator上一个RC版本来自2009/07/15+(0.9.6+rc1)，支持PHP5.3|4913236|entityMap^0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|F|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|G|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|-4|5|6|7|H|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|E|$]]

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

blocks|key|4068345|text|我总是在php+5.1和5.2中使用APC，但是在php+5.3中我有很多(随机的)错误:奇怪的空白页面，随机的内存不足错误。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高流量的网站。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|4068346|所以我试了下电子加速器。到目前为止，它是坚如磐石的，速度的提高甚至比APC更大。APC的人真的需要花一些时间在错误修复上。|4068347|entityMap^0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|F|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|G|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|-4|5|6|7|H|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|E|$]]

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.

blocks|key|850162|text|我认为APC是最好的选择，除非你在网站上使用Zend+Optimizer。APC与Zend+Optimizer不兼容，因此在这种情况下，您需要使用eAccelerator之类的工具。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|850163|entityMap^0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|D|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|-4|5|6|7|E|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|C|$]]

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.

blocks|key|4913329|text|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也会保持其稳定性。如果我们在这里讨论的是几百个请求/秒，你不会感觉到区别。但是，如果你想回应更多，那就一定要坚持使用APC。特别是如果你的应用程序具有过度的动态特性，这可能会在这种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。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|offset|length|data|4913330|entityMap|0|LINK|mutability|MUTABLE|url|http://www.ipsure.com/blog/2011/eaccelerator-as-zend-extension-high-load-averages-issue/^0|42|2G|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|L|8|@]|9|@$A|M|B|N|1|O]]|C|$]]|$1|D|3|-4|5|6|7|P|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]]|E|$F|$5|G|H|I|C|$J|K]]]]

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. <a href="http://www.ipsure.com/blog/2011/eaccelerator-as-zend-extension-high-load-averages-issue/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ipsure.com/blog/2011/eaccelerator-as-zend-extension-high-load-averages-issue/</a> may help.

blocks|key|850218|text|如果你只想缓存PHP文件，你可以直接使用eAccelerator。非常容易安装和配置，并提供很好的结果。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|850219|But+too+bad,+they+removed+the+eaccelerator_put+and+eaccelerator_put+from+the+latest+version+0.9.6.|offset|length|850220|entityMap|0|LINK|mutability|MUTABLE|url|http://eaccelerator.net/ticket/423^0|0|0|2Q|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|N|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|O|8|@]|9|@$D|P|E|Q|1|R]]|A|$]]|$1|F|3|-4|5|6|7|S|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|G|$H|$5|I|J|K|A|$L|M]]]]

If you want PHP file caching only, you can use eAccelerator directly. Very easy to install and configure, and give great results.

<a href="http://eaccelerator.net/ticket/423" rel="nofollow">But too bad, they removed the eaccelerator_put and eaccelerator_put from the latest version 0.9.6.</a>

blocks|key|4068399|text|XCache不分昼夜，没有使用eAccelerator的经验，但APC非常可靠，有大量的选择和不断的开发。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|4068400|entityMap^0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|D|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|-4|5|6|7|E|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|C|$]]

APC segfaults all day and all night, got no experience with eAccelerator but XCache is very reliable with loads of options and constant development.

Im doing research on which one of these to use and I can't really find one that stands out. <a href="http://eaccelerator.net/" rel="noreferrer">Eaccelerator</a> is faster than <a href="http://pecl.php.net/apc" rel="noreferrer">APC</a>, but APC is better maintained. <a href="http://xcache.lighttpd.net/" rel="noreferrer">Xcache</a> is faster but the others have easier syntax.

Anyone have recommendations on which to use and why?

apc vs eaccelerator vs xcache

翻译质量差，导致语言生硬或混乱。

没有提供实际的解决方法或示例。

解答不清晰，无法理解或解决问题。

页面排版不美观，阅读体验差。

文章

问答

视频

教程

学习中心

腾讯云实验室

直播

竞赛

腾讯云代码分析专区

腾讯iOA零信任安全管理系统专区

腾讯云架构师技术同盟交流圈

腾讯云数据库专区

腾讯云智能顾问专区

腾讯云原生专区

腾讯混元专区

腾讯云TCE专区

腾讯云Lighthouse专区

腾讯云HAI专区

腾讯云Edgeone专区

腾讯云存储专区

腾讯云智能专区

腾讯轻联专区 

腾讯云开发专区

TAPD专区

腾讯轻量云游戏服专区

腾讯云最具价值专家

腾讯云架构师技术同盟

腾讯云创作之星

腾讯云开发者先锋

腾讯云AI代码助手

云原生构建

TAPD 敏捷项目管理

Cloud Studio

SDK中心

API中心

命令行工具

功能1上新10个字符

功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符。

功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符。

功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符

功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符

功能4上新

文章&问答评论现已支持表情

全新交互，全新视觉，新增快捷键、悬浮工具栏、高亮块等功能并同时优化现有功能，全面提升创作效率和体验

社区富文本编辑器全新改版！诚邀体验～ 

精选全网热门MCP server，让你的AI更好用 🚀

💥开发者 MCP广场重磅上线！

涵盖代码开发、场景应用、自动测试全流程，助你从零构建专属AI助手

一站式MCP教程库，解锁AI应用新玩法

聚焦“写作效率、视觉美观与运行性能”三方面进行全面升级，为您提供更高效、稳定的创作环境

社区富文本&Markdown编辑器全新改版上线，欢迎大家体验!

诚挚邀请您参与本次调研，分享您的真实使用感受与建议。您的反馈至关重要，感谢您的支持与参与！

社区新版编辑器体验调研

我正在研究其中的哪一个，但我真的找不到一个突出的。比更快，但维护得更好。更快，但是其他的语法更简单。有没有人推荐使用哪种方法?为什么？

问apc vs eaccelerator vs xcache
EN

回答 12

Stack Overflow用户

Stack Overflow用户

Stack Overflow用户

社区

活动

圈层

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问apc vs eaccelerator vs xcacheEN

回答 12

Stack Overflow用户

Stack Overflow用户

Stack Overflow用户

社区

活动

圈层

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问apc vs eaccelerator vs xcache
EN