As much as I hate to admit this... You're right. Bleh... I hate having to say that.
It's like a Catholic admitting that Lutherans make better coffee. Can you tell I'm from Prairie Home Companion territory? Welcome to Late Woebegone... ;) But seriously, I think the *NIX way makes more sense... close from the get-go and little-to-no-gui... why? Because the GUI creates a false sense of ease. One expects the work that went into the gui to transfer to work that's gone into the... Eh, never mind. It's an academic and probably worthless argument. It all really comes down to making a choice. Laterz! J On Apr 1, 2005 5:22 PM, Paul Vernon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have to agree. CF5 on Windows was and is far more stable than CF7 > > Having run what was several huge sites on CF 4.5, 5 MX 6 and 6.1 all on > Windows 2000 and 2003 all on IIS, I have no idea why you would think that... > were looking at running MX 7 at the moment > > In my last employ, we were running 4 CF Servers in a load balanced array on > CF 5 and they were hell. Forever falling over crashing and requiring a > reboot. We eventually moved to CFMX 6.0 and that too was a pig but since we > updated to 6.1 we experienced few if at all any problems.... When I left, > the clustered SQL server setup has an uptime approaching 600 days per server > on W2k and our webservers were approaching 200 days uptime each. For me, I'd > say that those sorts of uptimes are more than acceptible in a production > environment. > > My experience with the stability of a Windows server has led me to believe > that it is generally down to the competence of the admin and their approach > to solving issues that may arise. As my competency and knowledge of Windows > rose, so did my uptimes it is that simple. > > Making a Windows box stable involves knowing that an NT technology based box > can in effect be running upto 5 operating systems in and of itself (NTVDM, > Posix, Win32, OS2 and good old 16-bit WOW) and knowing how to turn these off > leaving just the ones that you need (Win32). Also turning off all > unnecessary services goes a very long way to stabilising a server as does > hardening and optimising the TCP/IP stack. > > Windows gets a bad name because it is open out of the box... Being open > isn't that big an offence really. Unleashing the open box onto the Internet > is.... > > When you are approaching CFMX running on Windows then a good knowledge of > different JVM architectures and how to tweak them for best effect is useful. > I've tested running CF on several vendors JVMs and benchmarked them all > under simulated heavy load to ensure that we are getting the best out of the > technilogy that we can. > > To sum up, Windows isn't any more or less stable than any other OS if it is > configured and managed correctly and just because it has a nice easy GUI > doesn't mean that it is nice and easy to get it right in fact most of the > devil in configuring a Windows box is at the command line and in the > registry editor... After that, the GUI is a nice to have :) > > Paul -- Continuum Media Group LLC Burnsville, MN 55337 http://www.web-relevant.com http://www.web-relevant.com/blogs/cfobjective ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:10:5321 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/10 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:10 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.10 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
