Does that mean that if more than one request comes in at the same time, and
they are "waiting for the database" ... that you couldn't get more than 10
requests per second. My understanding was this answer would be for "serial"
requests. Yet, the request come in different sessions, and this answer seems
wrong to me. This would mean that sites that had more visitors would require
faster execution... which is right to some degree. Yet, I have believe load
testing for same time requests shows it is not linear based on the
processing time for a single request. Can some one who has done load testing
perk in here and clear this up for us?

Thanks,

John

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: [CFCDev] CFC Performance question


> IMHO, 100ms for a page request is the magic number. All pages when
> tested individually should be at 100ms or lower. Why 100ms?
> Multithreaded issues aside, 100ms means 10 pages per second, which is a
> very reasonable expectation of performance for a web application that
> hasn't be tuned or designed for performance.
>
> Matt Liotta
> President & CEO
> Montara Software, Inc.
> http://www.MontaraSoftware.com
> (888) 408-0900 x901
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email
> to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe cfcdev'
> in the message of the email.
>
> CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported
> by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com).
>
> An archive of the CFCDev list is available at
www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

----------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe cfcdev' 
in the message of the email.

CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported
by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com).

An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to