I'd second that if things have changed.

By way of coincidence, I was checking on a number of things the Systems > Status page reports as "an issue", the opcode cache option being one of them (also PHP memory_limit, and post_max_size). The answer I got back was basically, "sorry, can't help whilst you're on shared hosting", which is fair enough I suppose. My choice as to whether I wish to spend the money on a dedicated server or a VPS (the answer to which is "No, absolutely not"), or look for an alternative host (not inclined to do that either).

TL:DR: If it removes an unnecessary error message, I'm all for it.

@tilqicom do you have specific knowledge about how opcache works? It doesn't fully replace APC. We use APC (+ other alternatives) also to cache blocks of rendered content like widgets that don't need to refresh their content at every page load.

@chris_of_arabia can you specifically give us you host name and the limits they have on shared hosting? It helps us keep track of what "typical" constraints are.

@fplanque It's unitedhosting.co.uk.

Currently, their PHP memory limit is 128Mb

@fplanque I dont know the technical details, but from what I know APC has serious issues with php 5.5 and the opcode cache part will not work.
So I've went ahead and removed APC, and enabled the builtin opcache. Let me know if you have other suggestions. (I've memcached enabled too)
I've read about APCu, which is apc opcode part taken out, implements only the data cache part. I am thinking about installing it, but not sure if it would help.

PS: And oh, yeah 256MB ( or was it 512MB ? ) memory_limit sounds a bit too high for me as a recommendation too. I know it specifically says it's for the image functions, but for the average user, It implies b2 needs that kind of ram to function. Maybe you should lower it to 128 if not 64.

@chris_of_arabia wrote earlier:

I'd second that if things have changed.

. . . The answer I got back was basically, "sorry, can't help whilst you're on shared hosting", which is fair enough I suppose. My choice as to whether I wish to spend the money on a dedicated server or a VPS (the answer to which is "No, absolutely not"), or look for an alternative host (not inclined to do that either).

TL:DR: If it removes an unnecessary error message, I'm all for it.

Just to say I'm in the UK and have a shared hosting with vooservers.com.

I couldn't install the new version when the memory limit increased and just received an error so I called my host and gave them the install URL, so they could see the error, and this is what they said.
"Thank you for providing the link. That has now been set up for you. For reference you should be able to add php values to a new php.ini file within the public_html folder. Let me know if you have any more issues."

As the error said I needed 256 that's what they did, they may well have set 512 if I had asked.

But I don't want large image manipulation so I'd rather it was possible to choose, let's say 128 or 64 and not be unable to install, as happened.

https://www.vooservers.com/virtual-servers/

The memory limit for installing is 64M. I don't understand which screen you showed them or which screen told you that you could not install below 256M.

It doesnt say you cannot install, but after you install under System > Status, the PHP memory_limit check wont turn green < 256M . I mean its no biggie, like I said, it explicitly says "The memory_limit is low. Some features like image manipulation of large files may fail to work." but still for the average user it might imply b2evo wont function properly.

@fplanque wrote earlier:

The memory limit for installing is 64M. I don't understand which screen you showed them or which screen told you that you could not install below 256M.