Re: How about Macromedia provide a more detailed configuration document for CFMX?
I am reading so much pain and suffering caused by configuration issues with the migration to ColdFusionMX. There have been so many issues, my clients, for instance are delaying the upgrade until the dust settles. I am seeing so many people reporting problems with the set up and configuration, and reporting bugs, that turn out to be configuration that I would like to see Macromedia go to the effort to product a comprehensive set of documentation that will address these configuration issues. Just as Microsoft had to learn, the "one size fits all" is creating more problems than it solves. It should not be required for a system administrator to have to go to a $3000.00 course, purchase $200 to $300.00 in books just to install and configure the product. This is what it seems to appear to be the case at present. It should not require weeks and weeks of tweaking (read that thousands of dollars of labor costs.) to install and set up the server product. It seems to be a given that Macromedia does not pay much attention to its install application, which has been a bone of contention of mine from way back. Even the updater follows the old trend. I suggest the gurus at Macromedia obtain a copy of the new Microsoft .NET Enterprise server (release candidate) and walk through the install and configuration wizards and see what advances have been made toward set up and security, and try to incorporate the idea into their own install application. I have no question about the product being stable and awesome when properly configured, but why does it require so much training and expertise just to set up a server? When a hotfix is released, there should not be the requirement that the install procedure for the patches be different than the original install, but with just the required configuration for the fix itself. Instead when Macromedia releases a fix, each one has a unique installation procedure, such as "copy this file to this directory", and "copy that one to that directory" and then reboot or restart the service. The install application should do all that for consistency sake. Setting up remoting is treated so casually that way too much time is required to set that feature up and be consistent with server security. Best practices call for your database to be served on a different serer than the one that provides web services, remember? This address is filtered through the open relay database at http://www.ordb.org and is virus scanned by ANTIVIR http://www.dwhite.ws mailto:doug@;dwhite.ws | ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
RE: How about Macromedia provide a more detailed configuration document for CFMX?
Doug I will be installing CFMX for the first time, what configuration problems are you having? What issues should i be aware of? Thanks Kola > >-Original Message- > >From: Doug [mailto:doug@;dwhite.ws] > >Sent: 19 October 2002 18:13 > >To: CF-Talk > >Subject: Re: How about Macromedia provide a more detailed configuration > >document for CFMX? > > > > > >I am reading so much pain and suffering caused by configuration > >issues with the migration to > >ColdFusionMX. > > > >There have been so many issues, my clients, for instance are > >delaying the upgrade until the dust > >settles. I am seeing so many people reporting problems with > >the set up and configuration, and > >reporting bugs, that turn out to be configuration that I would > >like to see Macromedia go to the > >effort to product a comprehensive set of documentation that will > >address these configuration issues. > >Just as Microsoft had to learn, the "one size fits all" is > >creating more problems than it solves. > >It should not be required for a system administrator to have to > >go to a $3000.00 course, purchase > >$200 to $300.00 in books just to install and configure the > >product. This is what it seems to appear > >to be the case at present. It should not require weeks and > >weeks of tweaking (read that thousands > >of dollars of labor costs.) to install and set up the server product. > > > >It seems to be a given that Macromedia does not pay much > >attention to its install application, which > >has been a bone of contention of mine from way back. Even the > >updater follows the old trend. > > > >I suggest the gurus at Macromedia obtain a copy of the new > >Microsoft .NET Enterprise server (release > >candidate) and walk through the install and configuration > >wizards and see what advances have been > >made toward set up and security, and try to incorporate the idea > >into their own install application. > > > >I have no question about the product being stable and awesome > >when properly configured, but why does > >it require so much training and expertise just to set up a server? > > > >When a hotfix is released, there should not be the requirement > >that the install procedure for the > >patches be different than the original install, but with just > >the required configuration for the fix > >itself. Instead when Macromedia releases a fix, each one has a > >unique installation procedure, such > >as "copy this file to this directory", and "copy that one to > >that directory" and then reboot or > >restart the service. The install application should do all that > >for consistency sake. Setting up > >remoting is treated so casually that way too much time is > >required to set that feature up and be > >consistent with server security. Best practices call for your > >database to be served on a different > >serer than the one that provides web services, remember? > > > > > > > >This address is filtered through the open relay database at http://www.ordb.org and is virus scanned by ANTIVIR http://www.dwhite.ws mailto:doug@;dwhite.ws | ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Re: How about Macromedia provide a more detailed configuration document for CFMX?
We are holding off on the installation - we do not wish to bring down our production servers until all the issues are worked out. This address is filtered through the open relay database at http://www.ordb.org and is virus scanned by ANTIVIR http://www.dwhite.ws mailto:doug@;dwhite.ws - Original Message - From: "Kola Oyedeji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 12:24 PM Subject: RE: How about Macromedia provide a more detailed configuration document for CFMX? | Doug | | I will be installing CFMX for the first time, what configuration problems | are you having? What issues should i be aware of? | | Thanks | | Kola | ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm
RE: How about Macromedia provide a more detailed configuration document for CFMX?
I have made the same decision... -Original Message- From: Doug [mailto:doug@;dwhite.ws] Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 10:55 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: How about Macromedia provide a more detailed configuration document for CFMX? We are holding off on the installation - we do not wish to bring down our production servers until all the issues are worked out. This address is filtered through the open relay database at http://www.ordb.org and is virus scanned by ANTIVIR http://www.dwhite.ws mailto:doug@;dwhite.ws - Original Message - From: "Kola Oyedeji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 12:24 PM Subject: RE: How about Macromedia provide a more detailed configuration document for CFMX? | Doug | | I will be installing CFMX for the first time, what configuration problems | are you having? What issues should i be aware of? | | Thanks | | Kola | ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
RE: How about Macromedia provide a more detailed configuration document for CFMX?
what issues? mike chambers [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -Original Message- > From: Doug [mailto:doug@;dwhite.ws] > Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 1:55 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: How about Macromedia provide a more detailed > configuration document for CFMX? > > > We are holding off on the installation - we do not wish to > bring down our production servers until > all the issues are worked out. > ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
Re: How about Macromedia provide a more detailed configuration document for CFMX?
the null problem. To see more details : http://webforums.macromedia.com/coldfusion/messageview.cfm?catid=3&threadid= 410762&highlight_key=y&keyword1=null in our case this issue pops out of the blue. Once in a while any page requested gives this error. we had track it to a line of code that tries to copy some session information in the request scope in the onRequest End page For some reason CFMX is loosing a structure in the request scope and throws a null error. The only way to fix it (in or case is to restart CFMX) then everything goes back to normal for a few days (weeks) and then hits you again. This is major and should be resolved ASAP. Connection reset by peer http://webforums.macromedia.com/coldfusion/messageview.cfm?catid=10&threadid =423645&highlight_key=y&keyword1=Connection%20reset%20by%20peer Probably the are some other minor ones but these ones are SHOW STOPPERS. Thank you Marius Milosav www.scorpiosoft.com It's not about technology, it's about people. Virtual Company (VICO) Application Demo www.scorpiosoft.com/vicodemo/login.cfm - Original Message - From: "Mike Chambers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 7:35 PM Subject: RE: How about Macromedia provide a more detailed configuration document for CFMX? > what issues? > > mike chambers > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -Original Message- > > From: Doug [mailto:doug@;dwhite.ws] > > Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 1:55 PM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: Re: How about Macromedia provide a more detailed > > configuration document for CFMX? > > > > > > We are holding off on the installation - we do not wish to > > bring down our production servers until > > all the issues are worked out. > > > > ~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Re: How about Macromedia provide a more detailed configuration document for CFMX?
On Saturday, Oct 19, 2002, at 10:12 US/Pacific, Doug wrote: > I am reading so much pain and suffering caused by configuration issues > with the migration to ColdFusionMX. Well, since folks come to this list when they have problems, you're more likely to read of 'pain and suffering' here than 'wow! it was wonderful!'... > I am seeing so many people reporting problems with the set up and > configuration, and reporting bugs, that turn out to be configuration > that I would like to see Macromedia go to the effort to product a > comprehensive set of documentation that will address these > configuration issues. I think that's a great idea, something along the lines of the CFMX app dev center but for migration / configuration issues perhaps? > It should not be required for a system administrator to have to go to > a $3000.00 course, purchase $200 to $300.00 in books just to install > and configure the product. Hmm, well, I'm not entirely sure I'd agree with you there. My Apache admin guy has been on a bunch of courses, my Oracle DBAs have all been on extensive training (heck, even *I* have been on Oracle DBA courses, just so I can understand what my DBAs are talking about!). I'm not suggesting you should need all that just to get the product installed and running, but I don't think anyone should expect to be able to fully configure every nuance and fine tune it fully without *some* training and/or reading a lot of documentation. > It should not require weeks and weeks of tweaking (read that thousands > of dollars of labor costs.) to install and set up the server product. I agree... not to just get it installed and running. And it doesn't. I've installed CFMX on a ton of machines here. I've installed it and reinstalled it over and over again on my own machine - particularly during the development cycle when I was identifying suitable builds for my team: I'd go through the install, test, uninstall, reboot, install, test, uninstall... cycle up to eight times in a day. I had a production Solaris server setup in under an hour so I'll challenge the "it's too hard" claims made here... > It seems to be a given that Macromedia does not pay much attention to > its install application, which has been a bone of contention of mine > from way back. Even the updater follows the old trend. Have you listed your specific concerns and submitted them to Macromedia? If not, how will they know how to improve things? > I have no question about the product being stable and awesome when > properly configured, but why does it require so much training and > expertise just to set up a server? It doesn't. I've had no training. > When a hotfix is released, there should not be the requirement that > the install procedure for the > patches be different than the original install, but with just the > required configuration for the fix itself. People seem to have been fairly happy with the CFMX Updater. I didn't see complaints about copying individual files around. I haven't tried the Updater myself. Guess I should... *goes to mm.com -> support -> coldfusion ... click link to Updater ... download Linux version ... run the installer ... press enter a few times ... type /home/coldfusionmx .. confirm that ... confirm location of administrator ... start CFMX .. done!* Hmm, that was pretty easy... the CF Admin confirms that I'm now running the updated version: Server Product ColdFusion Server Version 6,0,0,52311 Edition Enterprise Operating System UNIX OS Version 10.2.1 Java Version 1.3.1 Java Vendor Apple Computer, Inc. Including downloading the 27.7Mb installer file to my desktop, it took me well under ten minutes to install including shutting down CFMX and restarting it. > Instead when Macromedia releases a fix, each one has a unique > installation procedure In the past perhaps. In response to users' comments, that has been addressed - it's why the Updater was created to provide a simple, standard way to apply hot fixes. It's not perfect. I gather that if you have multiple virtual sites with IIS, it doesn't update everything (at least, that's what I thought I read here). I believe it works just fine with Apache, even with multiple virtual hosts. But you can see above how easy it is to do the basic update and be back up and running again... > Setting up remoting is treated so casually that way too much time is > required to set that feature up and be consistent with server > security. Can you be specific here? Flash Remoting works 'out of the box' and requires no setup. I haven't done anything to 'set it up' on any CFMX server and it works just fine as far as I can see. > Best practices call for your database to be served on a different > serer than the one that provides web services, remember? And here we have web server (Apache) -> app server (CFMX) -> DB server (Oracle) all on separate machines. And we can still set it all up in an hou
