Can anyone verify that there are performance reasons to exclude the "generic" comments from either httpd.conf or php.ini? Personally I find the admonitions and associated clutter to be more distracting than anything else, but I can't imagine that it creates a much of a performance issue since I don't think they are read except at start-up. I'd like to standardizing on just including real configuration comments and scrapping the cruft and can't think of any reason why it shouldn't be fine.
2 Answers
Comments are not loaded into memory so you don't have to worry about it.
I assume you are using Linux. Files like apache2.conf or php.ini are maintainted by the package manager. These files will surely change on next upgrade and things will get messy.
I personnaly do not touch the configuration files directly. I use instead the included folders like "conf.d" or "sites-enabled" to create custom configuration files and edit/overwrite current settings.

- 1,356
- 3
- 14
- 28
There's no performance loss with lots of comments. I agree that the generic cruft is useless, and I tend to strip it out. I follow the same philosophy with config files as I do for code -- I explain things that need to be explained ("HERE BE DRAGONS"), but otherwise if you need to know what something does, there is a whole manual full of useful information on the purpose of LogLevel
. The standard crufty comments continue to exist due to people who are too lazy to read the manual, and those people are going to make a mess sooner or later, so why not make it sooner so I can identify them and take away their root privs before they do any real damage?

- 96,255
- 29
- 175
- 230