> testing. Maybe I should do more. I'm generally happy with the performance of > CF and haven't felt the need to skin performance to the minimum. I'm talking waits of FIVE seconds while the CF server did it's thing.
> > When you think about it, your example makes no sense. Five users with five This wasn't an example. This was observed behaviour. > sessions are going to run on five threads. If your site doesn't use frames, > then the "single threaded sessions" setting is going to have virtually no > effect. The only difference is the minimal amount of code that CF would need > to check session ID's and block the second thread within a session--and, as I > have said, the blocking would only occur in the rare case of a framed document > loading two windows simultaneously. The extra code necessary to check for a > multi-request session is going to be significantly less than the code required > to parse and execute the <CFLOCK> tags. I think there is more involved that just that. Suffice it to say, when I hear the words "single-threaded" anything in any language, I cringe. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kwang Suh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 1:50 PM > Subject: Re: Complete lack of locking... > > > > Not urban legend. > > > > We had the dev server here on "single threaded sessions". > > > > One user: good speed > > Two users: average speed > > Three users: slow > > Four users: very slow > > Five users: craaaaawwwwllll > > > > This was bad. Very bad. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
