Re: CF vs ASP.NET! GET YOUR FRESH POPCORRRRN!!
Regarding the relative costs of the expensive ColdFusion and the free other technologies, I have a statement from a colleague in another organisation, which I'll be posting separately. I told him about a site I'd just about finished in ColdFusion and he told me he was amazed. That I'd done my site in about 70 hours with another 40hours or so to finish it , and he had done a similar site in Free PHP - it had taken two of them (part time) two years to build. Let's assume for the sake of argument that all people working on these sites are costing $50/hour either as paid contractors or as employees including on-costs.I built my site, using expensive ColdFusion for $3500 plus a cold fusion server at perhaps $1200 - total $4700. They built their site using free PHP for (say) two people at 600 hours each - that's $60,000!! But they got the server software for free. Saved a big bunch there by going with the 'free' one didn't they. .Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia AFP Webworks http://afpwebworks.com .com,.net,.org domains from AUD$20/Year ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:187307 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
RE: CF vs ASP.NET! GET YOUR FRESH POPCORRRRN!!
I think you're a bit off... I could be wrong, but it's been my impression that when a thread finishes processing, it delivers any undelivered content from the buffer immediately and then grabs up the next incoming http request. So nobody's actually waiting for someone else's thread to finsih, just their own. So in the case of being able to spawn as many threads as you want within a request, your request would just be waiting for whatever threads it spawned and then needed results from to continue. I wonder if using large numbers of concurrent threads is helping performance regarding web sites/apps in any case. If a server is processing 100 pages that all take the same time to deliver a limited queue would improve performance because the pages that have finished would be delivered in batches of 10 - i.e. they would already be available to the user. With 100 concurrent threads all users would have to wait until all threads have finished working. So unlimited concurrent threads would not always guarantee better performance. Well, this is just what's been spinning in my head - it's late around here so correct me if I'm completely off. Cheers, Philipp s. isaac dealey 954.927.5117 new epoch : isn't it time for a change? add features without fixtures with the onTap open source framework http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=44477DE=1 http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=45569DE=1 http://www.fusiontap.com ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - RUWebby http://www.ruwebby.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:187317 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
RE: CF vs ASP.NET! GET YOUR FRESH POPCORRRRN!!
-Original Message- From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 11:33 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: CF vs ASP.NET! GET YOUR FRESH POPCON!! I think you're a bit off... I think that the original poster might be confusing two separate things here: asynchronous calls and thread pooling. CF has been doing thread pooling since it became truly multi-threaded in CF 3 or 4 (I forget which... but I think it was 3). All this means is that a certain number of threads is set aside for handling requests (the default is 10). When a request comes in it's assigned to a thread from the pool which runs it serially and returns. If all threads are active the request is queued and will be assigned the first available thread. As an aside the number of threads is only important in relation to your application. It should be clear that all active threads actually share the resources of the box. So, for example, if your application is highly CPU-bound (a calculator of some time or a data processer) then it's generally recommended that fewer threads be created. This means that more requests may have to wait, but that more processor time can be spread amongst the relatively few threads - this ensures that once a request gets a thread it finishes as fast as possible. (Remember that in actual fact the CPU is essentially running in serial - working on a small piece from each thread one after the other, not at the same time. Since thread management can consume significant resources you want to set your thread count low enough where you're not spending more time managing threads than completing your processing.) By the same token if you're threads may spend a lot of idle time - for example waiting for a web server or a database to respond you can up the number of active threads. Since they're only waiting for responses they're not consuming significant resources on their own - so why not allow a lot of them to put in their orders and wait instead of just a few? Anyway, that's thread pooling. We've had it forever and so has everything else. But the key point here is that within a thread everything runs in SERIAL - it plods along one after the other. A CF template can't call a database and then output a timer while it's waiting for a response. It must make the call, then wait for the DB to respond and then continue. Asynchronous calls (what Isaac was talking about originally) address this problem. This means simply that a single request can start something, then do something else while the first thing is working. Such processing isn't as necessary in web applications as in client-side applications (for example, think how annoying it would be if you counld't read email at the same time you were fetching new mail?) but can be very useful in certain situations. For example I've got a page that allows the user to fetch a PDF from the server. The page checks security permissions, writes and entry to a metrics log file, then delivers the PDF. In this case, as it is today, you musty get a response from the database to continue to deliver the PDF. But the metrics logging isn't critical to the process (in this case at least) so why should it delay the customer request? With an asynchronous call I could spawn a new thread to handle the database entry and then immediately deliver the file. The PDF thread would continue even if the new logging thread failed or was slow for some reason. From a single request I created two distinct, parallel processes that didn't have to be dependent upon one another. I'm not sure how this will be implemented in BlackStone - Isaac's post was the first I'd heard of it. But it is doable in Java (of course) and it wouldn't be all that hard to create a CFC to kick something like this off in CFMX (several people on this list have already done it I'm sure). If they're going to standardize it in BlackStone, more power to them, but HOW they're going to do it I'm not sure. Will they only support orphaned threads (threads which are created and launched but can't communicate back to the parent thread) or will they support a more complete model. As I said the actual practical uses for this kind of thing in a web application aren't all that common (think of the really good CF or ASP applications you've seen - none of them support this - I may be wrong, but I don't think PHP supports it either). So I would bet it will pretty simplistic support, not a full thread management model, but that's just a guess. Jim Davis ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - CFDynamics http://www.cfdynamics.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:187327 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: CF vs ASP.NET! GET YOUR FRESH POPCORRRRN!!
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 01:02:18 -0500, Jim Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure how this will be implemented in BlackStone - Isaac's post was the first I'd heard of it. But it is doable in Java (of course) and it wouldn't be all that hard to create a CFC to kick something like this off in CFMX (several people on this list have already done it I'm sure). If they're going to standardize it in BlackStone, more power to them, but HOW they're going to do it I'm not sure. Will they only support orphaned threads (threads which are created and launched but can't communicate back to the parent thread) or will they support a more complete model. Go read Damon Cooper's blog - he goes into quite a bit of detail about how this will work and, I believe, gives a code example. -- Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/ Team Fusebox -- http://www.fusebox.org/ Breeze Me! -- http://www.corfield.org/breezeme If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive. -- Margaret Atwood ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - New Atlanta http://www.newatlanta.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:187328 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
RE: CF vs ASP.NET! GET YOUR FRESH POPCORRRRN!!
ASP.NET is taking market away from CF! I doubt you can substantiate that. CF's market share appears to have shrunk from the old 2.0 and 3.0 days, but there's been a lot more going on than ASP.NET. In fact, ASP.NET is a minor blip on CF's radar when compared to the giant swarm of open-source development platforms like PHP. I'm just trying to wake people up... Why? Perhaps people know something about their businesses or clients that you don't. CF is still outrageous to purchase. (1) Anyone who is price-conscious won't be using ASP.NET. They'll be using PHP or Ruby on a Linux box. (2) Anyone who is forced to pay an outrageous price for CF (those in need of Enterprise features) is already paying much, much more for the development and hosting of a large, complicated, and clustered application. -- Roger Benningfield JournURL: http://journurl.com/ blog: http://admin.support.journurl.com/ ~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - New Atlanta http://www.newatlanta.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:187279 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
