Re: CGI.servername reliability
Thanks for both your help. ~| Create robust enterprise, web RIAs. Upgrade & integrate Adobe Coldfusion MX7 with Flex 2 http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;56760587;14748456;a?http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=LVNU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:265513 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: CGI.servername reliability
will give you an alternative to almost all CGI variables provided you are using CFMX 6 and later. HTH Qasim On 12/27/06, Dave Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Is there a more reliable way to determine the domain name > > than using CGI.server name? > > > > Specfically, I have multiple domain names pointing to the > > same folder via IIS and would like to determine which one is > > in use. I have noted that not all interent users provide the > > CGI variables which causes a problem. > > > > Any ideas on a better way to handle it? > > CGI.HTTP_HOST tells you what the browser's Host header contains. If you're > using host headers to differentiate requests to multiple virtual servers, > that's what you'd need to look at. On the other hand, if you're using > different IP addresses for your virtual servers, you could detect the > requested IP address instead. > > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software > http://www.figleaf.com/ > > Fig Leaf Software provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized > instruction at our training centers in Washington DC, Atlanta, > Chicago, Baltimore, Northern Virginia, or on-site at your location. > Visit http://training.figleaf.com/ for more information! > > ~| Create robust enterprise, web RIAs. Upgrade & integrate Adobe Coldfusion MX7 with Flex 2 http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;56760587;14748456;a?http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=LVNU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:265188 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
RE: CGI.servername reliability
> Is there a more reliable way to determine the domain name > than using CGI.server name? > > Specfically, I have multiple domain names pointing to the > same folder via IIS and would like to determine which one is > in use. I have noted that not all interent users provide the > CGI variables which causes a problem. > > Any ideas on a better way to handle it? CGI.HTTP_HOST tells you what the browser's Host header contains. If you're using host headers to differentiate requests to multiple virtual servers, that's what you'd need to look at. On the other hand, if you're using different IP addresses for your virtual servers, you could detect the requested IP address instead. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers in Washington DC, Atlanta, Chicago, Baltimore, Northern Virginia, or on-site at your location. Visit http://training.figleaf.com/ for more information! ~| Create robust enterprise, web RIAs. Upgrade & integrate Adobe Coldfusion MX7 with Flex 2 http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;56760587;14748456;a?http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=LVNU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:265100 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
CGI.servername reliability
Hi all, Is there a more reliable way to determine the domain name than using CGI.server name? Specfically, I have multiple domain names pointing to the same folder via IIS and would like to determine which one is in use. I have noted that not all interent users provide the CGI variables which causes a problem. Any ideas on a better way to handle it? ~| Create robust enterprise, web RIAs. Upgrade & integrate Adobe Coldfusion MX7 with Flex 2 http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;56760587;14748456;a?http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=LVNU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:265096 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: Reliability
On Friday 15 September 2006 20:21, Snake wrote: > No because CFC's did not exist in previous versions :-) The underlying problem of abusing the various scopes did though. -- Tom Chiverton Helping to dramatically brand edge-of-your-seat patterns This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP. Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at St James's Court Brown Street Manchester M2 2JF. A list of members is available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by the Law Society. CONFIDENTIALITY This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents. If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells LLP IT Department on 0870 365 8008. For more information about Halliwells LLP visit www.halliwells.com. ~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:253401 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
Re: Reliability
Hmm, nah. Too many IPs accessing it? What do the logs give you (if you error message is not in there) "This e-mail is from Reed Exhibitions (Oriel House, 26 The Quadrant, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 1DL, United Kingdom), a division of Reed Business, Registered in England, Number 678540. It contains information which is confidential and may also be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s) please note that any form of distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error please return it to the sender or call our switchboard on +44 (0) 20 89107910. The opinions expressed within this communication are not necessarily those expressed by Reed Exhibitions." Visit our website at http://www.reedexpo.com -Original Message- From: Tom Kitta To: CF-Talk Sent: Fri Sep 15 22:57:22 2006 Subject: RE: Reliability Since we are on reliability issue, did anyone have a problem with a CF server running Dev Net edition of CFMX 7.2 enterprise on Win 2003 Standard? Once a week or so I get "Connection was reset" errors which don't clear up even after restarting all services - have to restart my DEV box to clear it up. Extensive Google of the issue found only irrelevant information including the one on MM. TK -Original Message- From: Ryan, Terrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 4:17 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Reliability I really am Terrence Ryan. No need for the quotes. :) Terrence Ryan Senior Systems Programmer Wharton Computing and Information Technology E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Brent Nicholas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 11:32 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Reliability I think that "Terrence Ryan" had the best approach to the situation. CFMX is a stable product, we've run about 15 CFMX servers around the world supporting corporate intranets and extranets with a constant load and rarely have problems. Take a look at Terrence's pragmatic approach and try to emulate that. I think you'll find your answer. BN ~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:253345 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: Reliability
Since we are on reliability issue, did anyone have a problem with a CF server running Dev Net edition of CFMX 7.2 enterprise on Win 2003 Standard? Once a week or so I get "Connection was reset" errors which don't clear up even after restarting all services - have to restart my DEV box to clear it up. Extensive Google of the issue found only irrelevant information including the one on MM. TK -Original Message- From: Ryan, Terrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 4:17 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Reliability I really am Terrence Ryan. No need for the quotes. :) Terrence Ryan Senior Systems Programmer Wharton Computing and Information Technology E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Brent Nicholas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 11:32 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Reliability I think that "Terrence Ryan" had the best approach to the situation. CFMX is a stable product, we've run about 15 CFMX servers around the world supporting corporate intranets and extranets with a constant load and rarely have problems. Take a look at Terrence's pragmatic approach and try to emulate that. I think you'll find your answer. BN ~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:253324 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
RE: Reliability
I really am Terrence Ryan. No need for the quotes. :) Terrence Ryan Senior Systems Programmer Wharton Computing and Information Technology E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Brent Nicholas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 11:32 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Reliability I think that "Terrence Ryan" had the best approach to the situation. CFMX is a stable product, we've run about 15 CFMX servers around the world supporting corporate intranets and extranets with a constant load and rarely have problems. Take a look at Terrence's pragmatic approach and try to emulate that. I think you'll find your answer. BN ~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:253306 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: Reliability
No because CFC's did not exist in previous versions :-) -Original Message- From: Tom Chiverton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 15 September 2006 16:28 To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Reliability On Friday 15 September 2006 16:08, Snake wrote: > CFMX is less forgiving about bad code than previous versions. Wouldn't both of the problems you cite have killed previous versions too ? -- Tom Chiverton Helping to preemptively maximize web-enabled communities This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP. Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at St James's Court Brown Street Manchester M2 2JF. A list of members is available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by the Law Society. CONFIDENTIALITY This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents. If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells LLP IT Department on 0870 365 8008. For more information about Halliwells LLP visit www.halliwells.com. ~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:253301 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: Reliability
I agree. I mean, I've been doing government, military and intelligence related CF applications for 6 or 7 years now, and we haven't really found any major problems. We generally run large systems of multiple CF servers with some kind of hardware load balancing and it works great. As many people have said, the most notable exceptions to this have been from bad code. > -Original Message- > From: Brent Nicholas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 11:32 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: Reliability > > I think that "Terrence Ryan" had the best approach to the situation. CFMX > is a stable product, we've run about 15 CFMX servers around the world > supporting corporate intranets and extranets with a constant load and > rarely have problems. > > Take a look at Terrence's pragmatic approach and try to emulate that. I > think you'll find your answer. > > BN > > >Bit of an odd one this - but does anyone else find CF a little more > >"unreliable" than other similar products when using them in day to day > use. > > > >The only reason I ask is that our CF servers always seem a little more > >unstable than some of our other servers running things such as ASP.NET or > >Ruby on Rails. CF just seems to restart itself more than I believe it > >should. > > > >I am the only one? I'm pretty sure our code is fairly sound, and that > our > >servers aren't under too much load. > > > >-- > >Neil Middleton > > > >Visit feed-squirrel.com > > ~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:253265 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: Reliability
I think that "Terrence Ryan" had the best approach to the situation. CFMX is a stable product, we've run about 15 CFMX servers around the world supporting corporate intranets and extranets with a constant load and rarely have problems. Take a look at Terrence's pragmatic approach and try to emulate that. I think you'll find your answer. BN >Bit of an odd one this - but does anyone else find CF a little more >"unreliable" than other similar products when using them in day to day use. > >The only reason I ask is that our CF servers always seem a little more >unstable than some of our other servers running things such as ASP.NET or >Ruby on Rails. CF just seems to restart itself more than I believe it >should. > >I am the only one? I'm pretty sure our code is fairly sound, and that our >servers aren't under too much load. > >-- >Neil Middleton > >Visit feed-squirrel.com ~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:253264 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: Reliability
On Friday 15 September 2006 16:08, Snake wrote: > CFMX is less forgiving about bad code than previous versions. Wouldn't both of the problems you cite have killed previous versions too ? -- Tom Chiverton Helping to preemptively maximize web-enabled communities This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP. Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at St James's Court Brown Street Manchester M2 2JF. A list of members is available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by the Law Society. CONFIDENTIALITY This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents. If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells LLP IT Department on 0870 365 8008. For more information about Halliwells LLP visit www.halliwells.com. ~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:253260 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: Reliability
CFMX is less forgiving about bad code than previous versions. The most common cause of CFMX falling over that I have found so far, is jrun running out of memory. In most cases I have found this to be caused by clients whose code is instantiating CFC's in session scope, so the busier the site gets, the more CFC's are created and the more memory is used. The other one is manic caching of queries, where a page has a dynamic query, such as a search result, and the client caches each and every one of them. Russ -Original Message- From: Andy Matthews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 15 September 2006 14:17 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Reliability I'd be interested in hearing more about this topic too. Our two sysadmins curse CF all the time "because it's buggy and it crashes all the time and it sucks." I know that it CAN'T just be CF and I've asked our owner to bring in a consultant to tune our CF setup but he refuses saying "they know what they're doing, it's just bad code.". There are plenty of cases where it IS bad code, but that can't be the only reason. -Original Message- From: Neil Middleton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 5:22 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Reliability Bit of an odd one this - but does anyone else find CF a little more "unreliable" than other similar products when using them in day to day use. The only reason I ask is that our CF servers always seem a little more unstable than some of our other servers running things such as ASP.NET or Ruby on Rails. CF just seems to restart itself more than I believe it should. I am the only one? I'm pretty sure our code is fairly sound, and that our servers aren't under too much load. -- Neil Middleton Visit feed-squirrel.com ~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:253258 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: Reliability
CF is just like any updated service that has configurations and programmatic extensions. You have to stay on top of any program language and aware of what is happening. Are you keeping the OS maintained properly with patches, security fixes and scheduled downtime for additonal maintenance? Is the web server being patched, updated for increased load and regularily checking the logs and security? Is there testing of code in a mirrored development environment? Is anyone reading the CF logs? Is anyone code checking and submitting change configurations for code research? Does the administrator maintaining the server aware of the JVM? Does he/she understand how to change it? If you cannot yes to all of these, you are going to have possible ways for instability. The point here is not identitfy what people are not doing, but rather that CF cannot be held responsible for the faults of the other technologies and those maintaining the environment. CF is not just install and poof it works. CF is a J2EE enabled solution and should be treated as such by people who understand that it a legitimate enterprise environment. Teddy On 9/15/06, Peterson, Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The only time I ever bring down CF is on my dev box when I write > something retarded. My production server provides 5000 reports / pages > a day and will often go months without a hitch. > > Chris > > -Original Message- > From: Brad Wood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 9:27 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Reliability > > We restart CF services on each of our production servers every night. > > Is that a common practice elsewhere? > > ~Brad > > -Original Message- > From: Andy Matthews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 8:17 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Reliability > > I'd be interested in hearing more about this topic too. Our two > sysadmins curse CF all the time "because it's buggy and it crashes all > the time and it sucks." I know that it CAN'T just be CF and I've asked > our owner to bring in a consultant to tune our CF setup but he refuses > saying "they know what they're doing, it's just bad code.". > > There are plenty of cases where it IS bad code, but that can't be the > only reason. > > andy matthews > > > > > ~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:253256 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: Reliability
We restart CF services on each of our production servers every night. Is that a common practice elsewhere? ~Brad -Original Message- From: Andy Matthews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 8:17 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Reliability I'd be interested in hearing more about this topic too. Our two sysadmins curse CF all the time "because it's buggy and it crashes all the time and it sucks." I know that it CAN'T just be CF and I've asked our owner to bring in a consultant to tune our CF setup but he refuses saying "they know what they're doing, it's just bad code.". There are plenty of cases where it IS bad code, but that can't be the only reason.
Re: Reliability
The only time I've had to restart CF is when we've had to reboot the servers after applying patches to Windows/IIS/CFetc. Never had to do it because CF has hung. On 15/09/06, Tom Chiverton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday 15 September 2006 14:17, Andy Matthews wrote: > > I'd be interested in hearing more about this topic too. Our two sysadmins > > curse CF all the time "because it's buggy and it crashes all the time and > > it sucks." I know that it CAN'T just be CF and I've asked our owner to > > bring in a consultant to tune our CF setup but he refuses saying "they know > > what they're doing, it's just bad code.". > > This is a fairly common state of mind, unfortunately :-( > I get the impression back in the 3.x and 4.x days CF was not as stable as it > is now, and this has formed a lasting impression on some people, and, of > course, it's possible to write bad code in any language :-) > > -- > Tom Chiverton > Helping to adaptively entrench wireless bandwidth > > > > This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP. > > Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and > Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at > St James's Court Brown Street Manchester M2 2JF. A list of members is > available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner > in relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by > the Law Society. > > CONFIDENTIALITY > > This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may > be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you must > not read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor > inform any person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence > or contents. If you have received this email in error please delete it and > notify Halliwells LLP IT Department on 0870 365 8008. > > For more information about Halliwells LLP visit www.halliwells.com. > > > ~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:253254 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: Reliability
On Friday 15 September 2006 14:17, Andy Matthews wrote: > I'd be interested in hearing more about this topic too. Our two sysadmins > curse CF all the time "because it's buggy and it crashes all the time and > it sucks." I know that it CAN'T just be CF and I've asked our owner to > bring in a consultant to tune our CF setup but he refuses saying "they know > what they're doing, it's just bad code.". This is a fairly common state of mind, unfortunately :-( I get the impression back in the 3.x and 4.x days CF was not as stable as it is now, and this has formed a lasting impression on some people, and, of course, it's possible to write bad code in any language :-) -- Tom Chiverton Helping to adaptively entrench wireless bandwidth This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP. Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at St James's Court Brown Street Manchester M2 2JF. A list of members is available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by the Law Society. CONFIDENTIALITY This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents. If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells LLP IT Department on 0870 365 8008. For more information about Halliwells LLP visit www.halliwells.com. ~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:253253 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
Re: Reliability
On Friday 15 September 2006 14:27, Brad Wood wrote: > We restart CF services on each of our production servers every night. > Is that a common practice elsewhere? I've only ever heard of it being done on heavily used ISS systems. -- Tom Chiverton Helping to vitalistically initiate advanced applications This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP. Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at St James's Court Brown Street Manchester M2 2JF. A list of members is available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by the Law Society. CONFIDENTIALITY This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents. If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells LLP IT Department on 0870 365 8008. For more information about Halliwells LLP visit www.halliwells.com. ~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:253252 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: Reliability
Sadly, in my experience almost all CF problems are due to the coder(s) who built the system and seldom have anything to do with CF itself, unless it was bad CF settings -- again, human error. Its the answer no systems guy or gal wants to hear: its their own fault (or hopefully the blame can be laid off on their predecessor(s) ) I pretty much make a living going in and cleaning up established systems so they STOP exploding at regular intervals. One of the first things I put in is a site-wide error handler that dumps errors and all scope contents' to disk so I have a complete picture of the system at point of failure. The rest is just legwork: cleaning up the mess. In the end a busy server should be only throwing a few errors per day, and those only because perhaps my client doesn't want to reinvent a certain wheel for a bunch of cash and is willing to put up with X faults daily -- especially when they know they were at X*100 when we started out. I'll also acknowledge that early CFMX had its share of problems but those have largely disappeared. One thing I can point to also is the desire to do too many things on a server. In the past I've been (in)famous for being able to stretch resources. Getting CF running right, and then being able to put on a mail server and a db server on the same (overbuilt) box. No matter what your server specs, that is an inferior way to go about things and should ALWAYS be avoided... speaking in hindsight. I started out running everything on one big box. Then I broke off the db and stability went way up. Then -- recently -- I went ape and turned a 2-server system into one that uses 5. I use a lot of little servers to do the same job I formerly needed 2 big ones for and stability has gone thru the roof while costs have decreased. My CF/IIS server hosts about 50 small- to mid-trafficked sites and I never even need to restart CF anymore. Formerly when the CF server was also hosting stats and mail/antispam I needed to restart it in the wee hours every day.Taking away supposedly unrelated items gave the box the breathing room it needs to run forever. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Janitor, MSB Web Systems mysecretbase.com ~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:253251 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: Reliability
My last workplace had 2 CF servers (Windows, hardware load-balanced), with traffic of around 1m query-generated page views per day. A lot of the leg-work was performed by MS SQL in the background, but the CF servers held up very well. They only really needed a restart if the traffic went absolutely crazy, and half the time it was IIS causing trouble rather than CF. > -Original Message- > From: Brad Wood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 15 September 2006 14:56 > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Reliability > > One of our websites is hardware load balanced across 5 Linux servers and > we process about 80,000 page hits and half a million queries a day. I > don't really know how that compares to most places though. I'm sure we > could get away with leaving CF running (Heck Linux will run for many > months without an OS restart), but we got ourselves in the habit a > nightly CF restart out of cautiousness I guess. > > ~Brad > > -Original Message- > From: Peterson, Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 8:43 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Reliability > > The only time I ever bring down CF is on my dev box when I write > something retarded. My production server provides 5000 reports / pages > a day and will often go months without a hitch. > > Chris > > -Original Message- > From: Brad Wood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 9:27 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Reliability > > We restart CF services on each of our production servers every night. > > Is that a common practice elsewhere? > > ~Brad > > -Original Message- > From: Andy Matthews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 8:17 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Reliability > > I'd be interested in hearing more about this topic too. Our two > sysadmins curse CF all the time "because it's buggy and it crashes all > the time and it sucks." I know that it CAN'T just be CF and I've asked > our owner to bring in a consultant to tune our CF setup but he refuses > saying "they know what they're doing, it's just bad code.". > > There are plenty of cases where it IS bad code, but that can't be the > only reason. > > andy matthews > > > > > > > ~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:253250 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
RE: Reliability
One of our websites is hardware load balanced across 5 Linux servers and we process about 80,000 page hits and half a million queries a day. I don't really know how that compares to most places though. I'm sure we could get away with leaving CF running (Heck Linux will run for many months without an OS restart), but we got ourselves in the habit a nightly CF restart out of cautiousness I guess. ~Brad -Original Message- From: Peterson, Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 8:43 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Reliability The only time I ever bring down CF is on my dev box when I write something retarded. My production server provides 5000 reports / pages a day and will often go months without a hitch. Chris -Original Message- From: Brad Wood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 9:27 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Reliability We restart CF services on each of our production servers every night. Is that a common practice elsewhere? ~Brad -Original Message- From: Andy Matthews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 8:17 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Reliability I'd be interested in hearing more about this topic too. Our two sysadmins curse CF all the time "because it's buggy and it crashes all the time and it sucks." I know that it CAN'T just be CF and I've asked our owner to bring in a consultant to tune our CF setup but he refuses saying "they know what they're doing, it's just bad code.". There are plenty of cases where it IS bad code, but that can't be the only reason.
RE: Reliability
The only time I ever bring down CF is on my dev box when I write something retarded. My production server provides 5000 reports / pages a day and will often go months without a hitch. Chris -Original Message- From: Brad Wood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 9:27 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Reliability We restart CF services on each of our production servers every night. Is that a common practice elsewhere? ~Brad -Original Message- From: Andy Matthews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 8:17 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Reliability I'd be interested in hearing more about this topic too. Our two sysadmins curse CF all the time "because it's buggy and it crashes all the time and it sucks." I know that it CAN'T just be CF and I've asked our owner to bring in a consultant to tune our CF setup but he refuses saying "they know what they're doing, it's just bad code.". There are plenty of cases where it IS bad code, but that can't be the only reason.
RE: Reliability
I'd be interested in hearing more about this topic too. Our two sysadmins curse CF all the time "because it's buggy and it crashes all the time and it sucks." I know that it CAN'T just be CF and I've asked our owner to bring in a consultant to tune our CF setup but he refuses saying "they know what they're doing, it's just bad code.". There are plenty of cases where it IS bad code, but that can't be the only reason. -Original Message- From: Neil Middleton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 5:22 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Reliability Bit of an odd one this - but does anyone else find CF a little more "unreliable" than other similar products when using them in day to day use. The only reason I ask is that our CF servers always seem a little more unstable than some of our other servers running things such as ASP.NET or Ruby on Rails. CF just seems to restart itself more than I believe it should. I am the only one? I'm pretty sure our code is fairly sound, and that our servers aren't under too much load. -- Neil Middleton Visit feed-squirrel.com ~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:253244 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
Re: Reliability
On Thursday 14 September 2006 23:22, Neil Middleton wrote: > Bit of an odd one this - but does anyone else find CF a little more > "unreliable" than other similar products when using them in day to day use. Nope. > unstable than some of our other servers running things such as ASP.NET or > Ruby on Rails. CF just seems to restart itself more than I believe it > should. Not run them myself, but in my experience CF stayed up till (other bits in the same instance of) Weblogic crashed :-) -- Tom Chiverton Helping to competently network B2B channels This email is sent for and on behalf of Halliwells LLP. Halliwells LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under registered number OC307980 whose registered office address is at St James's Court Brown Street Manchester M2 2JF. A list of members is available for inspection at the registered office. Any reference to a partner in relation to Halliwells LLP means a member of Halliwells LLP. Regulated by the Law Society. CONFIDENTIALITY This email is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you must not read it and must not use any information contained in nor copy it nor inform any person other than Halliwells LLP or the addressee of its existence or contents. If you have received this email in error please delete it and notify Halliwells LLP IT Department on 0870 365 8008. For more information about Halliwells LLP visit www.halliwells.com. ~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:253231 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: Reliability
Hi Neil, our Railo Server on our website wich serves up to 60 websites has not been restarted since May 2004 (except for planned maintenance and update reasons). That's when we installed Railo on that server. So I guess the stability of this CFML Server is quite good. Nevertheless I did not have any larger reasons to complain either concerning MX in this matter. Except for the 6.0 version, 6.1 and 7.0x work just fine. Verity is sometimes a thing to worry about but the rest seems good and stable. Greetings / Grüsse Gert Franz Customer Care Railo Technologies GmbH [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.railo.ch Join our Mailing List / Treten Sie unserer Mailingliste bei: deutsch: http://de.groups.yahoo.com/group/railo/ english: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/railo_talk/ Neil Middleton schrieb: > Bit of an odd one this - but does anyone else find CF a little more > "unreliable" than other similar products when using them in day to day use. > > The only reason I ask is that our CF servers always seem a little more > unstable than some of our other servers running things such as ASP.NET or > Ruby on Rails. CF just seems to restart itself more than I believe it > should. > > I am the only one? I'm pretty sure our code is fairly sound, and that our > servers aren't under too much load. > > ~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:253226 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: Reliability
Not at all. I have worked with a number of high traffic CF sites that have gone months without restarts . Well, aside from CF 6.0, which had a nasty memory leak. -Original Message- From: "Neil Middleton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" Sent: 9/14/06 6:24 PM Subject: Reliability Bit of an odd one this - but does anyone else find CF a little more "unreliable" than other similar products when using them in day to day use. The only reason I ask is that our CF servers always seem a little more unstable than some of our other servers running things such as ASP.NET or Ruby on Rails. CF just seems to restart itself more than I believe it should. I am the only one? I'm pretty sure our code is fairly sound, and that our servers aren't under too much load. -- Neil Middleton Visit feed-squirrel.com ~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:253224 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: Reliability
Hard to compare CF to other technologies without very deep knowledge of these other technologies. However, we all know that version X.0 of CF at least when Java arrived had many problems. With patches some of these were fixed, but not all. For example CF6.1 has a bad memory leak under very heavy load under Sun but is fine with the same load under windows. TK -Original Message- From: Snake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 6:46 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Reliability Mostly I put it down to JAVA, as CFMX falls over a lot more than CF4/5 did. When ASP causes a problem, IIS tends to die as they are integrated, but then I can't honestly compare the two as 99.9% of the sites we host are CF anyway, so there is hardly anything on the servers to cause ASP to crash the server. Russ -Original Message- From: Neil Middleton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 14 September 2006 23:22 To: CF-Talk Subject: Reliability Bit of an odd one this - but does anyone else find CF a little more "unreliable" than other similar products when using them in day to day use. The only reason I ask is that our CF servers always seem a little more unstable than some of our other servers running things such as ASP.NET or Ruby on Rails. CF just seems to restart itself more than I believe it should. I am the only one? I'm pretty sure our code is fairly sound, and that our servers aren't under too much load. -- Neil Middleton Visit feed-squirrel.com ~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:253206 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4
RE: Reliability
Mostly I put it down to JAVA, as CFMX falls over a lot more than CF4/5 did. When ASP causes a problem, IIS tends to die as they are integrated, but then I can't honestly compare the two as 99.9% of the sites we host are CF anyway, so there is hardly anything on the servers to cause ASP to crash the server. Russ -Original Message- From: Neil Middleton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 14 September 2006 23:22 To: CF-Talk Subject: Reliability Bit of an odd one this - but does anyone else find CF a little more "unreliable" than other similar products when using them in day to day use. The only reason I ask is that our CF servers always seem a little more unstable than some of our other servers running things such as ASP.NET or Ruby on Rails. CF just seems to restart itself more than I believe it should. I am the only one? I'm pretty sure our code is fairly sound, and that our servers aren't under too much load. -- Neil Middleton Visit feed-squirrel.com ~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:253202 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: Reliability
We, at Wharton, used to have this problem. So we wrote a home grown monitoring service for CF that would tell us when it was down. Then as we started to examine the servers exactly when problems were occurring we were able to track down the source of many of our problems. Typically we found problems the following ways: ColdFusion Logs Jrun Logs IIS Logs Then we would research the hell out of the problem, and track down information we were seeing in the logs. The problems tended to be one of the following: A needed patch A needed setting tweak (Most common source of a problem for us.) Developer related (Bad code) By iteratively going through, and combating issues *as soon as they come up*, we were able to make our environment extremely stable. Terrence Ryan Senior Systems Programmer Wharton Computing and Information Technology E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Neil Middleton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 6:22 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Reliability Bit of an odd one this - but does anyone else find CF a little more "unreliable" than other similar products when using them in day to day use. The only reason I ask is that our CF servers always seem a little more unstable than some of our other servers running things such as ASP.NET or Ruby on Rails. CF just seems to restart itself more than I believe it should. I am the only one? I'm pretty sure our code is fairly sound, and that our servers aren't under too much load. -- Neil Middleton Visit feed-squirrel.com ~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:253198 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
RE: Reliability
I have never seen any of our CF services restart unless the server was restarted or if I restarted the services, manually. I would say CF is very stable, in our environment. However, we are not under much load. We may peak at around 120 concurrent sessions during our busy times each day. M!ke -Original Message- From: Neil Middleton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 5:22 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Reliability Bit of an odd one this - but does anyone else find CF a little more "unreliable" than other similar products when using them in day to day use. The only reason I ask is that our CF servers always seem a little more unstable than some of our other servers running things such as ASP.NET or Ruby on Rails. CF just seems to restart itself more than I believe it should. I am the only one? I'm pretty sure our code is fairly sound, and that our servers aren't under too much load. -- Neil Middleton ~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:253196 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: Reliability
Nope...although I do hear some horror storiesfor me CF has always (with some exceptions of course) been plenty stable...much more so since MX Personally I think stability is a tough one to nail down...a lot depends on the environment (OS/DB/webserver/etc.)...not always apples to apples Cheers Bryan Stevenson B.Comm. VP & Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. phone: 250.480.0642 fax: 250.480.1264 cell: 250.920.8830 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: www.electricedgesystems.com ~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:253195 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Reliability
Bit of an odd one this - but does anyone else find CF a little more "unreliable" than other similar products when using them in day to day use. The only reason I ask is that our CF servers always seem a little more unstable than some of our other servers running things such as ASP.NET or Ruby on Rails. CF just seems to restart itself more than I believe it should. I am the only one? I'm pretty sure our code is fairly sound, and that our servers aren't under too much load. -- Neil Middleton Visit feed-squirrel.com ~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:253191 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Re: MySQL 4.1 reliability?
I've been playing around with it on my home machine and word Dev machine with no problems so far. Andy J >I am running it fine on our intranet, no problems so far. > >-- >Jay > >> [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
RE: MySQL 4.1 reliability?
I am running it fine on our intranet, no problems so far. -- Jay > -Original Message- > From: Damien McKenna [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 09 August 2004 18:47 > To: CF-Talk > Subject: OT: MySQL 4.1 reliability? > > How reliable is MySQL 4.1? I know its flagged as beta but > would it be safe to use for a small task, e.g. a bug tracker? > -- > Damien McKenna - Web Developer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > The Limu Company - http://www.thelimucompany.com/ - > 407-804-1014 "Nothing endures but change." - Heraclitus > > > [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
Re: OT: MySQL 4.1 reliability?
Damien McKenna wrote: > How reliable is MySQL 4.1? How good is your backup procedure? Jochem [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
Re: OT: MySQL 4.1 reliability?
I use 4.1.2 on my development system (which I beat the *&%$# out of everyday) and I have no problems. I think a basic bug tracker would probably go fine... Cutter Damien McKenna wrote: > How reliable is MySQL 4.1? I know its flagged as beta but would it be > safe to use for a small task, e.g. a bug tracker? > -- > Damien McKenna - Web Developer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > The Limu Company - http://www.thelimucompany.com/ - 407-804-1014 > "Nothing endures but change." - Heraclitus > [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
Re: OT: MySQL 4.1 reliability?
I was using 4.0 for quite a while during it's beta run. It was rock solid. Can't speak for 4.1, as I haven't used it at all, but the MySQL guys seem to do it right. I wouldn't use it for a mission critical app, but for internal stuff like a bug tracker, I'd go for it. Especially if I knew I was probably going to be using it for production systems in the future, just to have a chance to play with it beforehand. cheers, barneyb On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 13:47:02 -0400, Damien McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How reliable is MySQL 4.1? I know its flagged as beta but would it be > safe to use for a small task, e.g. a bug tracker? > -- > Damien McKenna - Web Developer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > The Limu Company - http://www.thelimucompany.com/ - 407-804-1014 > "Nothing endures but change." - Heraclitus > > [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
OT: MySQL 4.1 reliability?
How reliable is MySQL 4.1? I know its flagged as beta but would it be safe to use for a small task, e.g. a bug tracker? -- Damien McKenna - Web Developer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Limu Company - http://www.thelimucompany.com/ - 407-804-1014 "Nothing endures but change." - Heraclitus [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
Re: Web service sizes and reliability
John I have done what you are attempting, many times -- though without web services. Frequently, I would move databases from one remote host to another using WDDX. WDDX and XML get a little slow on big recordsets and the amount of tag overhead is typically 256% -- for every 100 characters of actual data, you have 256 characters of XML tags. Other than that, I never never experienced reliability problems with the process. The largest db I moved was 33 meg. Now, some opinion.. In the situation that you describe, the format and structure of the data is known in advance by both the publisher and consumer of the web service. IMO, WDDX/XML (and it's associated overhead) is not justified for this use: -- the data does not need to be self-defining within the transmitted packet -- the data does not need to be human-readable Instead, I would use the concept of thinArrays* where the overhead is typically 13% (instead of 256%). This would be much faster, use less bandwidth, and be less exposed to "reliability" outages because of longer transmissions. With thinArrays, the recordset is encoded into a single string with a single-character separator between each cell of data -- this is similar to a CF list (with a couple of nuances). The WDDX/XML packet contains the header and open/close tags for the thinArray. You can see/get the thinArray code at Rob Rohan's site. http:///www.rohanclan.com/products/neuromancer/ Note: The client-side part of Rob's Neuromancer system only runs on newer browsers -- Mozilla, Firefox, etc. The server-side (including thinArrays) run on anything. All of the demos use thinArrays and web services. The source contains: --server-side CF apps --server-side CFCs that serialize/deserialize recordsets (CF queries and arrays) into thinArrays --server-side web service CFCs to publish/consume the thinArrays --client-side js functions to consume web services (including thinArrays) --client-side js functions to serialize/deserialize the thinArrays into js recordsets --client-side js functions to manipulate js recordsets. --client-side PIA apps HTH Dick On May 20, 2004, at 6:58 AM, Burns, John D wrote: > I'm getting into using web services more (from Flash and CF) and I'm > curious if there is an amount of data that is considered "reliable" > and > if there is a set amount that is considered "too much" for web > services > to handle. Just as an off the wall example, let's say I have a server > with information in a database (1000 records and about 10 > columns). If > I query that information out of the database and want to call a web > service on another machine to pass that data to machine 2 and have it > do > some data scrubbing and then insert into a database on that computer, > is > that too much to pass via a webservice? Is it better to loop over the > 1000 records and pass them to the web service one at a time or is it > better to pass a struct of all 1000 records at once and do the parsing > on the web service side? > > > If anyone has examples of things that are and are not reliable and > maybe > some general pointers on when web services are a good thing and when > they might not be the best tool for the job, please share. Thanks! > > > John Burns > [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Web service sizes and reliability
I'm getting into using web services more (from Flash and CF) and I'm curious if there is an amount of data that is considered "reliable" and if there is a set amount that is considered "too much" for web services to handle. Just as an off the wall example, let's say I have a server with information in a database (1000 records and about 10 columns). If I query that information out of the database and want to call a web service on another machine to pass that data to machine 2 and have it do some data scrubbing and then insert into a database on that computer, is that too much to pass via a webservice? Is it better to loop over the 1000 records and pass them to the web service one at a time or is it better to pass a struct of all 1000 records at once and do the parsing on the web service side? If anyone has examples of things that are and are not reliable and maybe some general pointers on when web services are a good thing and when they might not be the best tool for the job, please share. Thanks! John Burns [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: [Reply To] (CF 6 reliability) from Re: Memory Leak on Win2k/CMX6.1
I have personally used the Scheduler in CFMX and CF5.0. This is not a very efficient way to handle Scheduled Tasks, since they take up Application Server Resources. I would have another server handle all Offline tasks as Batch Jobs, Use RMI/WebServices to invoke applications that need to run Batch Jobs. Yes, there are Other Bugs in CFMX and am hoping MM would try to solve them asap. Joe Eugene -Original Message- From: Tom Kitta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 10:21 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: [Reply To] (CF 6 reliability) from Re: Memory Leak on Win2k/CMX6.1 The only problem we have with CFMX is the scheduler application under administrator. When we put scheduled events in MX they don't seam to run on the schedule we assign to them (don't run at all or run at different times). We were unable to fix this problem and thus all scheduled events are stuck on 5.0 server. Other than that there have been no major issues with the stability of the MX servers. As for the language itself, I admit that there are some bugs in CFMX, but I am hoping that MM will fix most of them in the next release. TK - Original Message - From: Boldacious Web Design To: CF-Talk Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 11:53 AM Subject: [Reply To] (CF 6 reliability) from Re: Memory Leak on Win2k/CMX6.1 What are other people's views on this - how many people are using MX with no problems? You wrote >>I suggest the user with problems with the server product, to uninstall >>it completely and revert to CF 5.0, until Macromedia gets its act >> together. While a lot was accomplished with the 6.1 release over >>previous editions, it still is not a stable product., and IMHO should >>not even be on the market. Seamus Campbell Boldacious WebDesign http://www.boldacious.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ph 02 6297 4883 fax 02 6297 4883 mob 0410 609 267 [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: [Reply To] (CF 6 reliability) from Re: Memory Leak on Win2k/CMX6.1
The only problem we have with CFMX is the scheduler application under administrator. When we put scheduled events in MX they don't seam to run on the schedule we assign to them (don't run at all or run at different times). We were unable to fix this problem and thus all scheduled events are stuck on 5.0 server. Other than that there have been no major issues with the stability of the MX servers. As for the language itself, I admit that there are some bugs in CFMX, but I am hoping that MM will fix most of them in the next release. TK - Original Message - From: Boldacious Web Design To: CF-Talk Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 11:53 AM Subject: [Reply To] (CF 6 reliability) from Re: Memory Leak on Win2k/CMX6.1 What are other people's views on this - how many people are using MX with no problems? You wrote >>I suggest the user with problems with the server product, to uninstall >>it completely and revert to CF 5.0, until Macromedia gets its act >> together. While a lot was accomplished with the 6.1 release over >>previous editions, it still is not a stable product., and IMHO should >>not even be on the market. Seamus Campbell Boldacious WebDesign http://www.boldacious.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ph 02 6297 4883 fax 02 6297 4883 mob 0410 609 267 [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: (CF 6 reliability) from Re: Memory Leak on Win2k/CMX6.1
We are running 6.1 and have seen a memory leak, not severe. We seem to run fine for a couple of weeks before things begin to slow down. We've found that simply stopping and restarting the service will fix the issue. We might try the Microsoft JDBC drivers to see if that doesn't help us. __ Bill Grover Supervisor MIS Phone: 301.424.3300 x3324 EU Services, Inc. FAX: 301.424.3696 649 North Horners Lane E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rockville, MD 20850-1299 WWW: http://www.euservices.com __ -Original Message- From: Ryan Sabir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 8:46 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re:(CF 6 reliability) from Re: Memory Leak on Win2k/CMX6.1 Hi all, I have recently installed CFMX 6.1 in a high traffic production environment, and I can say that I haven't experienced this memory leak problem. I am getting quite a few deadlock errors and service too busy error, but I suspect thats an issue with the questionable code that we inherited. By high traffic I mean around 70,000 page views per day. My machine configuration is: Intel Xeon 2.4GHz cache 1024 MB RAM 36 G Hard Drive It was a completely fresh install of MS Windows 2000 Server, fully patched, and a completely fresh install of CFMX. I'm using the JDBC drivers provided by Microsoft and installed as described in this technote: http://www.macromedia.com/support/coldfusion/ts/documents/cfmx_config_mssql2000.htm Hope this helps someone get to the bottom of their problem... Tuesday, November 4, 2003, 12:08:46 PM, you wrote: KW> Might be easier to ask how many people are having serious problems with MX. KW> Ken KW> Boldacious Web Design wrote: >> What are other people's views on this - how many people are using >> MX with no problems? >> >> >> You wrote >> >> >> >>>>I suggest the user with problems with the server product, to >> >> uninstall >>it completely and revert to CF 5.0, until Macromedia >> gets its act >> >>>>together. While a lot was accomplished with the 6.1 release >> >> over >>previous editions, it still is not a stable product., and >> IMHO should >>not even be on the market. >> >> >> Seamus Campbell Boldacious WebDesign >> http://www.boldacious.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> ph 02 6297 4883 fax 02 6297 4883 mob 0410 609 267 >> >> >> KW> _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: [Reply To] (CF 6 reliability) from Re: Memory Leak on Win2k/CMX6.1
You will love Oracle 10g then! Important: This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is confidential, commercially valuable or subject to legal or parliamentary privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any review, re-transmission, disclosure, use or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited by several Commonwealth Acts of Parliament. If you have received this communication in error please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: [Reply To] (CF 6 reliability) from Re: Memory Leak on Win2k/CMX6.1
Yeah and I've been using CF for 8 years now. Obviously over time you learn much more and need to adapt more. Important: This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is confidential, commercially valuable or subject to legal or parliamentary privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any review, re-transmission, disclosure, use or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited by several Commonwealth Acts of Parliament. If you have received this communication in error please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: [Reply To] (CF 6 reliability) from Re: Memory Leak on Win2k/CMX6.1
Our setups are a combination of XP Pro/ Oracle 8.1.6 in dev, Solaris and Oracle 8.1.6 in production. Zero stability issues since we went live. (Can't say that for our previous CF5 system though lol) Cheers! Stace _ From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: November 3, 2003 11:08 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: [Reply To] (CF 6 reliability) from Re: Memory Leak on Win2k/CMX6.1 So far it's been fine for me - no problems I can't trace to my own stupidity. Jim Davis -Original Message- From: Boldacious Web Design [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 11:54 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: [Reply To] (CF 6 reliability) from Re: Memory Leak on Win2k/CMX6.1 What are other people's views on this - how many people are using MX with no problems? You wrote >>I suggest the user with problems with the server product, to uninstall >>it completely and revert to CF 5.0, until Macromedia gets its act >> together. While a lot was accomplished with the 6.1 release over >>previous editions, it still is not a stable product., and IMHO should >>not even be on the market. Seamus Campbell Boldacious WebDesign http://www.boldacious.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ph 02 6297 4883 fax 02 6297 4883 mob 0410 609 267 _ _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: [Reply To] (CF 6 reliability) from Re: Memory Leak on Win2k/CMX6.1
So far it's been fine for me - no problems I can't trace to my own stupidity. Jim Davis -Original Message- From: Boldacious Web Design [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 11:54 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: [Reply To] (CF 6 reliability) from Re: Memory Leak on Win2k/CMX6.1 What are other people's views on this - how many people are using MX with no problems? You wrote >>I suggest the user with problems with the server product, to uninstall >>it completely and revert to CF 5.0, until Macromedia gets its act >> together. While a lot was accomplished with the 6.1 release over >>previous editions, it still is not a stable product., and IMHO should >>not even be on the market. Seamus Campbell Boldacious WebDesign http://www.boldacious.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ph 02 6297 4883 fax 02 6297 4883 mob 0410 609 267 _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: [Reply To] (CF 6 reliability) from Re: Memory Leak on Win2k/CMX6.1
CMFX has been running really well for us since the 6.1 release. No complaints about stability. Brook At 03:53 AM 11/4/2003, you wrote: >What are other people's views on this - how many people are using >MX with no problems? > > You wrote > > >>I suggest the user with problems with the server product, to >uninstall >>it completely and revert to CF 5.0, until Macromedia >gets its act > >> together. While a lot was accomplished with the 6.1 release >over >>previous editions, it still is not a stable product., and >IMHO should >>not even be on the market. > >Seamus Campbell Boldacious WebDesign >http://www.boldacious.com >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >ph 02 6297 4883 fax 02 6297 4883 mob 0410 609 267 > > >-- >[ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re:(CF 6 reliability) from Re: Memory Leak on Win2k/CMX6.1
Hi all, I have recently installed CFMX 6.1 in a high traffic production environment, and I can say that I haven't experienced this memory leak problem. I am getting quite a few deadlock errors and service too busy error, but I suspect thats an issue with the questionable code that we inherited. By high traffic I mean around 70,000 page views per day. My machine configuration is: Intel Xeon 2.4GHz cache 1024 MB RAM 36 G Hard Drive It was a completely fresh install of MS Windows 2000 Server, fully patched, and a completely fresh install of CFMX. I'm using the JDBC drivers provided by Microsoft and installed as described in this technote: http://www.macromedia.com/support/coldfusion/ts/documents/cfmx_config_mssql2000.htm Hope this helps someone get to the bottom of their problem... Tuesday, November 4, 2003, 12:08:46 PM, you wrote: KW> Might be easier to ask how many people are having serious problems with MX. KW> Ken KW> Boldacious Web Design wrote: >> What are other people's views on this - how many people are using >> MX with no problems? >> >> >> You wrote >> >> >> I suggest the user with problems with the server product, to >> >> uninstall >>it completely and revert to CF 5.0, until Macromedia >> gets its act >> together. While a lot was accomplished with the 6.1 release >> >> over >>previous editions, it still is not a stable product., and >> IMHO should >>not even be on the market. >> >> >> Seamus Campbell Boldacious WebDesign >> http://www.boldacious.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> ph 02 6297 4883 fax 02 6297 4883 mob 0410 609 267 >> >> >> KW> [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: [Reply To] (CF 6 reliability) from Re: Memory Leak on Win2k/CMX6.1
Might be easier to ask how many people are having serious problems with MX. Ken Boldacious Web Design wrote: > What are other people's views on this - how many people are using > MX with no problems? > > > You wrote > > > >>>I suggest the user with problems with the server product, to > > uninstall >>it completely and revert to CF 5.0, until Macromedia > gets its act > >>>together. While a lot was accomplished with the 6.1 release > > over >>previous editions, it still is not a stable product., and > IMHO should >>not even be on the market. > > > Seamus Campbell Boldacious WebDesign > http://www.boldacious.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ph 02 6297 4883 fax 02 6297 4883 mob 0410 609 267 > > > [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: [Reply To] (CF 6 reliability) from Re: Memory Leak on Win2k/CMX6.1
Actually I am not having any problems with an installation of MX6.1 on Win2003 Enterprise, and also on RH Linux 7.3/Apache, but The vast majority of CF hosting clients are still asking for CF 5.0, and that is why I still maintain that platform as well. == Stop spam on your domain, use our gateway! For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com Featuring Win2003 Enterprise, RedHat Linux, CFMX 6.1 Suggested corporate Anti-virus policy: http://www.dshield.org/antivirus.pdf == If you are not satisfied with my service, my job isn't done! - Original Message - From: "Boldacious Web Design" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 11:53 AM Subject: [Reply To] (CF 6 reliability) from Re: Memory Leak on Win2k/CMX6.1 | What are other people's views on this - how many people are using | MX with no problems? | | | You wrote | | | >>I suggest the user with problems with the server product, to | uninstall >>it completely and revert to CF 5.0, until Macromedia | gets its act | >> together. While a lot was accomplished with the 6.1 release | over >>previous editions, it still is not a stable product., and | IMHO should >>not even be on the market. | | | Seamus Campbell Boldacious WebDesign | http://www.boldacious.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] | ph 02 6297 4883 fax 02 6297 4883 mob 0410 609 267 | | | [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
[Reply To] (CF 6 reliability) from Re: Memory Leak on Win2k/CMX6.1
What are other people's views on this - how many people are using MX with no problems? You wrote >>I suggest the user with problems with the server product, to uninstall >>it completely and revert to CF 5.0, until Macromedia gets its act >> together. While a lot was accomplished with the 6.1 release over >>previous editions, it still is not a stable product., and IMHO should >>not even be on the market. Seamus Campbell Boldacious WebDesign http://www.boldacious.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] ph 02 6297 4883 fax 02 6297 4883 mob 0410 609 267 [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: htmldoc.exe / cf_html2pdf3 reliability?
Yes, I have found that if you give htmldoc.exe a bad path for the input or output file then the process doesn't stop. I have therefore built in some checking to see that the source file exists and the output dir exists before it runs. Anything else anyone? Jeff Brown wrote: > > I also use it on a low-volume app and cf_html2pdf3 has worked very well... > although the lack of CSS functionality is often a pisser. I remember a > discussion from about a month ago in CF-Talk, someone told me that > HTMLDOC.exe often left threads running on his server. Something to watch > out for, it hasn't happened to me though. Good luck! > > v/r, > Jeff > > -Original Message- > From: Richard Meredith-Hardy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 2:01 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: htmldoc.exe / cf_html2pdf3 reliability? > > This seems to work rather well on my dev server. Are there any issues I > should know about / fix before I try to pursuade my server people it is > ok? It's a very low volume application. > > I have v.1-8-8 of htmldoc.exe which works fine, but I believe the latest > version is 1.8.19. The GNU executable version from easysw needs to be > compiled (which I have no idea how to do), could anyone send me a > compiled version off list? > > -- > Regards; > > Richard Meredith-Hardy > - > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Mob: + 44 7771 526513 > > __ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com 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
RE: htmldoc.exe / cf_html2pdf3 reliability?
> I also use it on a low-volume app and cf_html2pdf3 has worked > very well... although the lack of CSS functionality is often > a pisser. The latest version of ActivePDF WebGrabber handles CSS, if you're interested in that. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 __ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com 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
RE: htmldoc.exe / cf_html2pdf3 reliability?
I also use it on a low-volume app and cf_html2pdf3 has worked very well... although the lack of CSS functionality is often a pisser. I remember a discussion from about a month ago in CF-Talk, someone told me that HTMLDOC.exe often left threads running on his server. Something to watch out for, it hasn't happened to me though. Good luck! v/r, Jeff -Original Message- From: Richard Meredith-Hardy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 2:01 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: htmldoc.exe / cf_html2pdf3 reliability? This seems to work rather well on my dev server. Are there any issues I should know about / fix before I try to pursuade my server people it is ok? It's a very low volume application. I have v.1-8-8 of htmldoc.exe which works fine, but I believe the latest version is 1.8.19. The GNU executable version from easysw needs to be compiled (which I have no idea how to do), could anyone send me a compiled version off list? -- Regards; Richard Meredith-Hardy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mob: + 44 7771 526513 __ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.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
htmldoc.exe / cf_html2pdf3 reliability?
This seems to work rather well on my dev server. Are there any issues I should know about / fix before I try to pursuade my server people it is ok? It's a very low volume application. I have v.1-8-8 of htmldoc.exe which works fine, but I believe the latest version is 1.8.19. The GNU executable version from easysw needs to be compiled (which I have no idea how to do), could anyone send me a compiled version off list? -- Regards; Richard Meredith-Hardy - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mob: + 44 7771 526513 __ 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 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
RE: Reliability of CFSCHEDULE in CF 4.5.1. SP2?
Damon, I'm wondering if I'm facing a similar problem. Whenever a scheduled task is submitted by CF, I got a "server busy" error message. There are no other activities on the server during the execution of the tasks. Log entries: scheduler.log "Information","TID=1232","09/27/00","00:01:40","Scheduled action ... submission initiated." "Information","TID=1232","09/27/00","00:02:12","Scheduled action ... submitted successfully." webserver.log "Error","TID=1276","09/27/00","00:02:12","Server busy or unable to fulfill request. The server is unable to fulfill your request due to extremely high traffic or an unexpected internal error. Please attempt your request again (if you are repeatedly unsuccessful you should notify the site administrator). (Location Code: 25) " server.log "Warning","TID=948","09/27/00","00:02:12","Template: , Ran: 32 seconds." "Information","TID=664","09/27/00","00:22:04","The ColdFusion Application Server started." The tasks are complex, with several select/insert queries. System: Dual PIII, 1GB RAM, Win2K, CF 4.5.1 Enterprise, MDAC 2.5. The database is located at another server (NT4, SQL Server 7 SP2). Any idea? Thanks, Marcello. > Jaime, > > That's not quite accurate. CFExec does not submit the two tasks >simultaneously. You may have a low limit on Simultaneous Requests. Each >scheduled task takes two threads if the target url for the task is on the >same server - one to run the cfschedule and in turn cfschedule uses cfhttp >to post the url which (again if on the same server ) uses another request >and uses a thread. Now if both scheduled task are long running request then >you will be tying up 4 threads for that time and the server could appear >hung. > > Also, be sure you're on SP1. > > Thanks > > > > > > Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 09:30:52 -0700 > > From: "Jaime Garza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: RE: Reliability of CFSCHEDULE in CF 4.5.1. SP2? > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > I know that if you schedule two tasks to start at the same time in Cold > > Fusion Scheduler, it may hang your Cold Fusion. It took me weeks to get > > to > > this knowledge. > > > > Allaire guys, can this be looked at as part of SP2 if possible? > > > > >-- >Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ >To Unsubscribe visit >http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a >message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body. -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
Re: Reliability of CFSCHEDULE in CF 4.5.1. SP2?
Damon, Will increasing the number of simultaneous requests make the scheduler any more reliable? Jim - Original Message - From: "Damon Cooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 12:30 PM Subject: RE: Reliability of CFSCHEDULE in CF 4.5.1. SP2? > Jaime, > > That's not quite accurate. CFExec does not submit the two tasks > simultaneously. You may have a low limit on Simultaneous Requests. Each > scheduled task takes two threads if the target url for the task is on the > same server - one to run the cfschedule and in turn cfschedule uses cfhttp > to post the url which (again if on the same server ) uses another request > and uses a thread. Now if both scheduled task are long running request then > you will be tying up 4 threads for that time and the server could appear > hung. > > Also, be sure you're on SP1. > > Thanks > > > > > > Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 09:30:52 -0700 > > From: "Jaime Garza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: RE: Reliability of CFSCHEDULE in CF 4.5.1. SP2? > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > I know that if you schedule two tasks to start at the same time in Cold > > Fusion Scheduler, it may hang your Cold Fusion. It took me weeks to get > > to > > this knowledge. > > > > Allaire guys, can this be looked at as part of SP2 if possible? > > > > -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
RE: Reliability of CFSCHEDULE in CF 4.5.1. SP2?
Jaime, That's not quite accurate. CFExec does not submit the two tasks simultaneously. You may have a low limit on Simultaneous Requests. Each scheduled task takes two threads if the target url for the task is on the same server - one to run the cfschedule and in turn cfschedule uses cfhttp to post the url which (again if on the same server ) uses another request and uses a thread. Now if both scheduled task are long running request then you will be tying up 4 threads for that time and the server could appear hung. Also, be sure you're on SP1. Thanks > > Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 09:30:52 -0700 > From: "Jaime Garza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: Reliability of CFSCHEDULE in CF 4.5.1. SP2? > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I know that if you schedule two tasks to start at the same time in Cold > Fusion Scheduler, it may hang your Cold Fusion. It took me weeks to get > to > this knowledge. > > Allaire guys, can this be looked at as part of SP2 if possible? > > -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
RE: Reliability of CFSCHEDULE in CF 4.5.1
> Here's an example of a batch file that you could schedule via > AT or WinAT > (or any other non-CF scheduling service). The first two lines set NT [snip] Thanks for that Jim - appreciated. -- Aidan Whitehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Netshopper UK Ltd Advanced Web Solutions & Services http://www.netshopperuk.com/ Telephone +44 (01744) 648650 Fax +44 (01744) 648651 -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
RE: Reliability of CFSCHEDULE in CF 4.5.1. SP2?
I have been using Arcana Scheduler for the last few years and couldn't be happier Does all kinds of task scheduling at $55.00 per server. Details can be found at: http://www.arcanadev.com/scheduler/ Frank -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
Re: Reliability of CFSCHEDULE in CF 4.5.1
Here's an example of a batch file that you could schedule via AT or WinAT (or any other non-CF scheduling service). The first two lines set NT environment variables. QUERY_STRING is anything that might appear after the ? in a URL calling your template. You'll probably need the double quotes around this line because the multiple = signs in a typical query string confuse the command processor. The second environment variable is the complete path of the CF template file that you're executing. The last line calls the CF executable, which will use the environment variable previously set. set "QUERY_STRING=RequestTimeout=300" set CF_TEMPLATE_PATH=d:\web\mo\xfer\lodging.cfm c:\cfusion\bin\cfml.exe I wouldn't mind seeing that post regarding getting CF scheduling to work. I'm not having any luck. I use CFSCHEDULE from within my CF app to schedule a couple of templates, but they're not being executed. If I look under the CF Administrator, they're placed there with all parameters exactly as I specified, but they don't run. Jim - Original Message - From: "Aidan Whitehall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 9:47 AM Subject: RE: Reliability of CFSCHEDULE in CF 4.5.1 > > Is CFSCHEDULE any more reliable in v4.5.1 than in past > > releases? I've never > > trusted it, always using Windows AT to run batch files > > launching templates. > > I'm really struggling with the scheduler at the moment... nuthin' seems to > work (haven't tried setting up events using the CFSCHEDULE tag, though). > > I took a quick look at help on the AT command the other day and wondered > where the hell to start. Do you have a sample batch file you could send me > to show how to set an AT job up? > > > On another note... > Smeone posted a message a couple of months ago on how to set up a scheduled > event so that it always worked... quite a detailed procedure. Does anyone > have a copy of that e-mail, or is the original poster listening? > > > > Thanks > > -- > Aidan Whitehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Netshopper UK Ltd > Advanced Web Solutions & Services > > http://www.netshopperuk.com/ > Telephone +44 (01744) 648650 > Fax +44 (01744) 648651 > -- > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ > To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body. -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
Re: Reliability of CFSCHEDULE in CF 4.5.1
inFusion Scheduler is in beta and should be released today or tomorrow. It is now part of iMS (will be released as part of the iMS 1.5 package) as well as a stand-alone product. inFusion Scheduler will be sold separately at $399. Some of the advantages of CF Schedule: CFSchedule checks for events every 15 minutes. inFusion Scheduler checks at a user-defined interval. CFSchedule executes templates via HTTP. inFusion Scheduler processes templates directly via the inFusionEngine. CFSchedule has a limited number of event types. inFusion Scheduler is fully customizable. CFSchedule keeps events in the Windows Registry. inFusion Scheduler can keep events in any user-defined location including databases. inFusion Scheduler has a built-in mechanism for restarting ColdFusion if it becomes unresponsive or does not send back a predetermined response. Regards, Howie P.S. If anyone who won a free copy of the scheduler at CFUN 2K and did not receive a serial number as of yet please let me know off list. - Original Message - From: "JustinMacCarthy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 12:05 PM Subject: Re: Reliability of CFSCHEDULE in CF 4.5.1 > Howie and the guys @ www.coolfusion.com have built a program called cftimer > , which allow you to run CF templates without using IIS so no timeouts and > lots of other cool stuff > > The times etc are stored in an odbc DB > > I'm not sure of the cost , but it's not much. > Ask Howie about it he is on this list . > > Justin > > > - Original Message - > From: "Aidan Whitehall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 4:47 PM > Subject: RE: Reliability of CFSCHEDULE in CF 4.5.1 > > > > > Is CFSCHEDULE any more reliable in v4.5.1 than in past > > > releases? I've never > > > trusted it, always using Windows AT to run batch files > > > launching templates. > > > > I'm really struggling with the scheduler at the moment... nuthin' seems to > > work (haven't tried setting up events using the CFSCHEDULE tag, though). > > > > I took a quick look at help on the AT command the other day and wondered > > where the hell to start. Do you have a sample batch file you could send me > > to show how to set an AT job up? > > > > > > On another note... > > Smeone posted a message a couple of months ago on how to set up a > scheduled > > event so that it always worked... quite a detailed procedure. Does anyone > > have a copy of that e-mail, or is the original poster listening? > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > -- > > Aidan Whitehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Netshopper UK Ltd > > Advanced Web Solutions & Services > > > > http://www.netshopperuk.com/ > > Telephone +44 (01744) 648650 > > Fax +44 (01744) 648651 > > -- > > > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ > > To Unsubscribe visit > http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or > send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in > the body. > > > > > > -- > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ > To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body. -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
RE: Reliability of CFSCHEDULE in CF 4.5.1. SP2?
I know that if you schedule two tasks to start at the same time in Cold Fusion Scheduler, it may hang your Cold Fusion. It took me weeks to get to this knowledge. Allaire guys, can this be looked at as part of SP2 if possible? > -Original Message- > From: Aidan Whitehall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 8:48 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Reliability of CFSCHEDULE in CF 4.5.1 > > > > Is CFSCHEDULE any more reliable in v4.5.1 than in past > > releases? I've never > > trusted it, always using Windows AT to run batch files > > launching templates. > > I'm really struggling with the scheduler at the moment... nuthin' seems to > work (haven't tried setting up events using the CFSCHEDULE tag, though). > > I took a quick look at help on the AT command the other day and wondered > where the hell to start. Do you have a sample batch file you could send me > to show how to set an AT job up? > > > On another note... > Smeone posted a message a couple of months ago on how to set up a > scheduled > event so that it always worked... quite a detailed procedure. Does anyone > have a copy of that e-mail, or is the original poster listening? > > > > Thanks > > -- > Aidan Whitehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Netshopper UK Ltd > Advanced Web Solutions & Services > > http://www.netshopperuk.com/ > Telephone +44 (01744) 648650 > Fax +44 (01744) 648651 > -- > > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ > To Unsubscribe visit > http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf _talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body. -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
RE: Reliability of CFSCHEDULE in CF 4.5.1
> I believe in the Windows NT resource kit you can find WinAT which is a > graphical interface to teh command line AT command, that > should help you a > ton into using it... Thanks... I'll look into that. -- Aidan Whitehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Netshopper UK Ltd Advanced Web Solutions & Services http://www.netshopperuk.com/ Telephone +44 (01744) 648650 Fax +44 (01744) 648651 -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
Re: Reliability of CFSCHEDULE in CF 4.5.1
Howie and the guys @ www.coolfusion.com have built a program called cftimer , which allow you to run CF templates without using IIS so no timeouts and lots of other cool stuff The times etc are stored in an odbc DB I'm not sure of the cost , but it's not much. Ask Howie about it he is on this list . Justin - Original Message - From: "Aidan Whitehall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 4:47 PM Subject: RE: Reliability of CFSCHEDULE in CF 4.5.1 > > Is CFSCHEDULE any more reliable in v4.5.1 than in past > > releases? I've never > > trusted it, always using Windows AT to run batch files > > launching templates. > > I'm really struggling with the scheduler at the moment... nuthin' seems to > work (haven't tried setting up events using the CFSCHEDULE tag, though). > > I took a quick look at help on the AT command the other day and wondered > where the hell to start. Do you have a sample batch file you could send me > to show how to set an AT job up? > > > On another note... > Smeone posted a message a couple of months ago on how to set up a scheduled > event so that it always worked... quite a detailed procedure. Does anyone > have a copy of that e-mail, or is the original poster listening? > > > > Thanks > > -- > Aidan Whitehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Netshopper UK Ltd > Advanced Web Solutions & Services > > http://www.netshopperuk.com/ > Telephone +44 (01744) 648650 > Fax +44 (01744) 648651 > -- > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ > To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body. > > -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
RE: Reliability of CFSCHEDULE in CF 4.5.1
Aidan, I believe in the Windows NT resource kit you can find WinAT which is a graphical interface to teh command line AT command, that should help you a ton into using it... John -Original Message- From: Aidan Whitehall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 10:48 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Reliability of CFSCHEDULE in CF 4.5.1 > Is CFSCHEDULE any more reliable in v4.5.1 than in past > releases? I've never > trusted it, always using Windows AT to run batch files > launching templates. I'm really struggling with the scheduler at the moment... nuthin' seems to work (haven't tried setting up events using the CFSCHEDULE tag, though). I took a quick look at help on the AT command the other day and wondered where the hell to start. Do you have a sample batch file you could send me to show how to set an AT job up? On another note... Smeone posted a message a couple of months ago on how to set up a scheduled event so that it always worked... quite a detailed procedure. Does anyone have a copy of that e-mail, or is the original poster listening? Thanks -- Aidan Whitehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Netshopper UK Ltd Advanced Web Solutions & Services http://www.netshopperuk.com/ Telephone +44 (01744) 648650 Fax +44 (01744) 648651 -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body. -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
RE: Reliability of CFSCHEDULE in CF 4.5.1
> Is CFSCHEDULE any more reliable in v4.5.1 than in past > releases? I've never > trusted it, always using Windows AT to run batch files > launching templates. I'm really struggling with the scheduler at the moment... nuthin' seems to work (haven't tried setting up events using the CFSCHEDULE tag, though). I took a quick look at help on the AT command the other day and wondered where the hell to start. Do you have a sample batch file you could send me to show how to set an AT job up? On another note... Smeone posted a message a couple of months ago on how to set up a scheduled event so that it always worked... quite a detailed procedure. Does anyone have a copy of that e-mail, or is the original poster listening? Thanks -- Aidan Whitehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Netshopper UK Ltd Advanced Web Solutions & Services http://www.netshopperuk.com/ Telephone +44 (01744) 648650 Fax +44 (01744) 648651 -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
Re: Reliability of CFSCHEDULE in CF 4.5.1
A core piece of our site depended heavily on CFSCHEDULE operating properly. Of course it didn't so we had to find another ways to schedule the executions of site pages. > From: "Jim McAtee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 14:19:55 -0600 > To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Reliability of CFSCHEDULE in CF 4.5.1 > > Is CFSCHEDULE any more reliable in v4.5.1 than in past releases? I've never > trusted it, always using Windows AT to run batch files launching templates. > Just wondering if Allaire has finally gotten a handle on all the past > problems. > > I need to develope somethiing for an environment running 4.5.1 and would > like an idea of whether or not I should waste my time screwing around with > CFSCHEDULE. > > Jim > > -- > Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ > To Unsubscribe visit > http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or > send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the > body. > -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
RE: Reliability of CFSCHEDULE in CF 4.5.1
I have been using the CFSCHEDULE in 4.01 and 4.51 and runs great for me. Server platform: Windows NT SP 4 -Original Message- From: Jim McAtee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 4:20 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Reliability of CFSCHEDULE in CF 4.5.1 Is CFSCHEDULE any more reliable in v4.5.1 than in past releases? I've never trusted it, always using Windows AT to run batch files launching templates. Just wondering if Allaire has finally gotten a handle on all the past problems. I need to develope somethiing for an environment running 4.5.1 and would like an idea of whether or not I should waste my time screwing around with CFSCHEDULE. Jim -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body. -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
Reliability of CFSCHEDULE in CF 4.5.1
Is CFSCHEDULE any more reliable in v4.5.1 than in past releases? I've never trusted it, always using Windows AT to run batch files launching templates. Just wondering if Allaire has finally gotten a handle on all the past problems. I need to develope somethiing for an environment running 4.5.1 and would like an idea of whether or not I should waste my time screwing around with CFSCHEDULE. Jim -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
Scalabilty and Reliability which is better
I am looking to invest some money in some computers soon and was wondering which is a better configuration. 2 huge computers with maxed out ram, raid 5, 3 network cards, the whole nine yards, or that equivalent price with maybe 5 computers and everything is clustered using cluster cats and clustering ability of SQL Server 7. I was curious because if I am gonna spend quite a bit of money I want to make sure my computers are working pretty good. Robert Everland III Web Developer Dixon Ticonderoga -- Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ To Unsubscribe visit http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk or send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe' in the body.
