CakeDC Blog

TIPS, INSIGHTS AND THE LATEST FROM THE EXPERTS BEHIND CAKEPHP

Benchmarking requestAction

Now there has been a lot of discussion in the past few months about requestAction() and how it can very easily create a negative impact on your application. In fact I even wrote such an article myself. However, its high time that someone did the number crunching to really see if requestAction() is actually as slow as we all seem to think it is. So onto the testing method and the results.

Testing method

To test this theory I used a small CakePHP application and the SVN head (revision 8064) of CakePHP. I used a simple sample application with 2 controllers and 2 models. My model method directly returned the results without touching the database, so that database retrieval time and model processing would not be a factor in these tests. As I was only interested in the performance implications inherent in requestAction() itself, I wanted to remove the variance created by connecting to a database. I set debug = 0, and used basic file caching. After warming up the cake core caches, I tested 4 different controller actions.

  • Using Relations / ClassRegistry::init() - The method I originally proposed, and often touted as the 'best' solution to requestAction()
  • Using RequestAction with a string URL
  • Using RequestAction with and Array URL
  • Using a cached RequestAction - This more accurately simulates how we use requestAction at CakeDC.

Benchmarks were generated with Siege I used 10 concurrent users with 110 reps each. My local development web-server is running Apache 2.2/PHP 5.2.6 o n a 2.6GHz Core 2 Duo iMac with 2GB of ram. I ran each test 3 times and took the best result of each.

Using model relations / ClassRegistry::init()

First up was my originally proposed solution of using model relations to access the correct information. I used the following command and got the following results.

siege -b http://localhost/benchmark/posts/using_relations

Transactions:		        1100 hits
Availability:		      100.00 %
Elapsed time:		       63.21 secs
Data transferred:	        1.50 MB
Response time:		        0.55 secs
Transaction rate:	       17.40 trans/sec
Throughput:		        0.02 MB/sec
Concurrency:		        9.60
Successful transactions:        1100
Failed transactions:	           0
Longest transaction:	        1.76
Shortest transaction:	        0.10


Using RequestAction with a string URL

Up next was using request action with a string url. String URL's are often the slower way to perform a requestAction as parsing the URL string is one of the more expensive operations in request dispatching. I used the following command and the best results were.

siege -b http://localhost/benchmark/posts/using_requestaction

Transactions:		        1100 hits
Availability:		      100.00 %
Elapsed time:		       64.60 secs
Data transferred:	        1.51 MB
Response time:		        0.57 secs
Transaction rate:	       17.03 trans/sec
Throughput:		        0.02 MB/sec
Concurrency:		        9.72
Successful transactions:        1100
Failed transactions:	           0
Longest transaction:	        1.76
Shortest transaction:	        0.11


RequestAction with an Array URL

Up next is requestAction() witn an array url. Using an array URL is supposed to expedite the dispatching process as it bypasses much of the parameter parsing done by Router. This theory turned out to be true, as Array URL's clocked in marginally faster than their string counterparts.

siege -b http://localhost/benchmark/posts/using_requestaction_array

Transactions:		        1100 hits
Availability:		      100.00 %
Elapsed time:		       64.08 secs
Data transferred:	        1.53 MB
Response time:		        0.57 secs
Transaction rate:	       17.17 trans/sec
Throughput:		        0.02 MB/sec
Concurrency:		        9.78
Successful transactions:        1100
Failed transactions:	           0
Longest transaction:	        1.66
Shortest transaction:	        0.11

RequestAction using Array URL's and Caching

In my mind this was going to be the most performant requestAction option, due to the cached nature. The results were as expected with this method clocking to be only slightly behind the relation call. It is important to note as well, that this test does not reflect the time savings earned from not having to make an additional query/ round of result parsing. In a real world situation, the savings of using a cached element would be magnified by the cost of the query.

siege -b http://localhost/benchmark/posts/using_cached_requestaction

Transactions:		        1100 hits
Availability:		      100.00 %
Elapsed time:		       63.60 secs
Data transferred:	        1.52 MB
Response time:		        0.56 secs
Transaction rate:	       17.30 trans/sec
Throughput:		        0.02 MB/sec
Concurrency:		        9.62
Successful transactions:        1100
Failed transactions:	           0
Longest transaction:	        1.77
Shortest transaction:	        0.09

Results Summary

In case you quickly scanned through the full results here is a summary of what happened.

Method Requests per second (mean) Total time taken (seconds)
Using relations/ClassRegistry::init() 17.40 63.21
Using requestAction and string urls 17.03 64.60
Using requestAction and array urls 17.17 64.08
Using cached requestaction 17.30 63.60

In closing requestAction() can be slower than a direct method call. There are some benefits to using requestAction though.

  • You have the opportunity to reduce the number of repeated lines of code by putting the requestAction inside the element. In doing so, you create an encapsulated element, that can be included anywhere without having to worry about having the correct method calls in your controller.
  • You can more easily cache the element. By using requestAction in conjunction with element caching you have an easy to use, simple to implement caching. Getting the same results with model method calls in your controller requires additional caching logic in your models.
  • The potential for increased performance. As we saw in the benchmarks above, a cached element performed almost as fast as the direct method call. This margin will grow when a database query is added into the mix.

Now am I retracting my previous stance on requestAction? No, I still feel that there are many situations where requestAction is the incorrect solution and signals poor application design. However, when the need arises it is good to know that requestAction can be as fast or faster than other approaches when implemented properly.

 

Latest articles

CakePHP Upgrade to 4 - Piece by Piece

Let's imagine you have a huge application in CakePHP 2.x (or 1.x) and you're planning to upgrade to the latest CakePHP 4.x. After doing some estimations, you realize the upgrade process is out of your scope, because you don't have the budget or developer availability to do it in 1 shot. At this point, some companies would abort the upgrade and keep working on 2.x for "some more time" until "this last release is delivered" or until "budget is available next fall", digging deeper and deeper into the rabbit hole…   There's an alternative you could follow if this is your case: proceed with the upgrade of a smaller portion of your application and let the 2 versions coexist for some time.   Warning: This is NOT for every project or company. Please carefully think about this decision as it has overhead you'll need to handle.   So, if your application has a portion that could be extracted, with a small set of dependencies from other areas of your application, or if you are creating a new feature with a limited set of dependencies with the rest of your application, this approach would be good for you.   In order to allow both applications to coexist, we are going to keep the CakePHP 1.x application as the main one, and use CakePHP 4.x as a subfolder inside of the first one. It's important to note that in order to share sessions between both applications you'll need to use a storage you can actually share, like database or cache based sessions (redis, etc). Then, you can use a configuration like this one (see below) to add a new upstream to handle your new application. Note: the upstream could be located in another server of your network, using a different PHP version etc.   We've used nginx as an example, but you can use the same approach in other web servers like Apache.   In our example we're going to use all paths starting with /api  to be managed by our new CakePHP 4.x application. upstream cake4 {      # Note this could be any server/port in your network where the cake4 application is installed          server 127.0.0.1:9090; }   # This is our CakePHP 2.x server server {     server_name example.com;       root   /var/virtual/example.com/app/webroot;     index index.php;       # All requests /api are forwarded to our CakePHP 4.x application location /api {         proxy_pass http://cake4;             proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-For $proxy_add_x_forwarded_for;         proxy_set_header Host $host;             proxy_http_version 1.1;         proxy_set_header Upgrade $http_upgrade;             proxy_set_header Connection "Upgrade";     }       location / {             try_files $uri $uri/ /index.php?$args;     }       location ~ \.php$ {           try_files $uri =404;           include fastcgi_params;                fastcgi_pass unix:/run/php/php7.4-fpm.sock;           fastcgi_index index.php;             fastcgi_intercept_errors on;         fastcgi_param SCRIPT_FILENAME $document_root$fastcgi_script_name;     } }   # This is our CakePHP 4.x server server {     listen 9090;     server_name example.com;       root   /var/virtual/cake4-example.com/webroot;     index index.php;       location / {         try_files $uri $uri/ /index.php?$args;     }       location ~ \.php$ {         try_files $uri =404;             include fastcgi_params;         fastcgi_pass unix:/run/php/php7.4-fpm.sock;             fastcgi_index index.php;         fastcgi_intercept_errors on;             fastcgi_param SCRIPT_FILENAME $document_root$fastcgi_script_name;     } }   As you can see, we have 3 blocks defined in our configuration file:

  • upstream cake4 {...} to forward requests to the CakePHP 4.x application
  • server {... 2.x ...} using a location /api to forward all these calls to the CakePHP 4.x server
  • server {... 4.x ...} using a specific port (9090) to handle requests in CakePHP 4.x
  Using this approach, you can break your application into 2 parts, and start moving features by path to CakePHP 4. You'll need to handle the changes in 2 projects for a while, and pay this overhead,  but this could be better to maintain than a CakePHP 2.x application sitting on an old PHP version. Happy baking!  

Dependency Injection with CakePHP

Dependency Injection is some of the bigger buzzwords in PHP frameworks.  Historically, CakePHP application logic didn’t support that, until the version 4.2 was released last December. You can do that on your own and have a few plugins for that. This is a new chapter of the framework, let's see how to bake it.  

Use Case

First, let’s talk about a classic Use case on real applications. Our application will include an address form, such as the shipping address for an online order, or provide information about User, Company, etc. Autocomplete can help users supply the details.   We will use the Geocoding API from Google Maps Platform, making a HTTP request for API with json output format and address parameter: https://maps.googleapis.com/maps/api/geocode/json?address=89104&key=****** And here we go, we will get this result:  

Baking a Address Service

After seeing the Use case, all we need on our backend is to make a HTTP request for API and return the JSON result for the frontend to populate related fields.   1. First, let’s exposing our application for accept “.json” requests:   2. Now, we can bake a Address Controller and let’s request an empty result: $ ./bin/cake bake controller Address --actions index   Now our app requests /address.json will return an empty JSON.   3. Let’s bake (manually) the Address Service:   Basically I’m using Cake\Http\Client to make the API request. Also I read Geocode.key from Cake\Core\Configure, we don't want to expose our key on public requests (add the key on config/boostrap.php).   4. Let’s rewrite our Controller:   5. Finally, let’s add our Service on Application.php:   That’s all bakers! Now our endpoint /address.json will support query parameters and return the result of the API request.  

The cost of shiny

I’m here selling an idea and I don't start with the cons. Unfortunately, the Dependency Injection container is an experimental feature that is not API stable yet.  The support is a bit limited, CakePHP will inject services into: constructors of Controllers and Commands and Controller actions. The core team hopefully stabilizes the feature on version 4.3, or at most 4.4. They need your help testing and finding cases, and feedback always is welcome.   I hope this post can be useful for you and your projects.  See you next time!  

Planning For Your Upgrade

Having a successful upgrade implies not only upgrading the code itself, but also identifying the different tasks that will be part of the Upgrade Plan. Making a good plan for an upgrade requires identifying the current status of the application. A good plan is based upon clear, well-defined, and easily understood objectives.   After years of experience with CakeDC making upgrades, migrating applications from CakePHP 1 to CakePHP 4 in all possible combinations, we have noticed there are a set of elements or characteristics that are useful to evaluate and identify before starting the upgrade. Having a clear understanding of these elements will be helpful to define the different tasks that will be included in the Upgrade Plan, and reduce any risk while upgrading and delivering.   Imagine that you want to run a marathon - but before starting any of the thousands of plans you can find on the internet about “How to run a Marathon”, you must know where you are. You could ask yourself:  How many miles per week are you currently running? What is the base training needed to start this program? What is the distance of your longest run in the past 3 weeks? How many days per week do you have available to exercise?, etc. This will help you to choose the plan that better fits you. It’s important to identify where you are, where you want to get and how to get where you want.    Wondering how  to evaluate where you are for the Upgrade? Evaluate the status of your application. You could consider the following points as reference:

  • What is your current CakePHP version? 
  • Identify the weaknesses and the strength of the current code by making a code review.
  • Identify the versions of the packages, plugins, libraries that your application is using. 
  • If you are using CakePHP Third Party plugins, figure out if those plugins have already been upgraded.
  • Identify any third party integration and how the upgrade could affect it. 
  • What is the unit test coverage, if any? 
  • Is there any existing documentation?
  • Is there any custom change in the CakePHP core? (I hope there is not!)
  The complexity, time, cost, and resources required to upgrade your application will depend on the status of your application. Once you know where you are, it’s the time to plan how to get where you want.  Let’s talk about this in a future article. In case you are looking for some guidance on preparing your Upgrade Plan, don’t hesitate to contact us, we could help you to identify your current status, define the plan and execute the whole plan for you. We can also work together with your team on the upgrade, helping them understand the upgraded codebase so you can maintain the project with your own team as you did before.  

We Bake with CakePHP