APC vs EAccelerator vs XCache

[Deimos]

Just out of curiousity, which one do you use? (If any)

APC, EA or Xcache?

Any paticular reason for choosing either?

The VB tech staff member (who's name I forget) always says to use Xcache, but I'm a little concerned that it hasn't been updated since 2007.

[unp]

They all serve the same purpose, there is hardly any difference performance wise.
I personally use APC as it is more actively maintained compared to eA and Xcache.

[veenuisthebest]

yes its eva2000 aka George who always suggests XCache, which is the best.

JFYI, visit their news page. XCache 1.3.0 compatible with PHP 5.3 is under development.

[Andreas]

Ther is not that much difference except:

• XCache has separate segments for code and data
• eAccelerator supports caching opcode on disk

I'd recommend APC as it is developed by the PHP team and is subject to be part of PHP 6 core.

[Dismounted]

XCache is a little faster compared to APC, but APC is more actively maintained - take your pick.

[RedWingFan]

My first encounter a couple of years ago with APC was not good: frequent crashes...even Apache was crashing. Found out the version I had wasn't all that good, so we upgraded it, and APC has been running flawlessly since then. Completely "hands off" since the upgrade, in fact.

For the miniscule performance gain others have mentioned, I won't bother with Xcache. I do know that based on server load averages, APC cut our server load in half. Nothing to sneeze at!

[|Jordan|]

I use Xcache but i have to switch to something else. I'm getting lots of clogs and there's no fixes available for it. The support for Xcache itself isint that bad, but no one has concrete answers.

[Dismounted]

As mentioned, APC is a very valid replacement to XCache.

[R1lover]

xcache and it works great

[|Jordan|]

I'm trying to switch to APC, but they stopped making windows builds and ive only found one place that has windows builds, but im not sure its trustable and i think they're old versions.