I just finished the final tests on asynchronous logging for House of Fusion and
the results are fantastic! Having the logging operations 'thrown' to an
asynchronous process instead of being part of a page call is showing a nice
performance boost. I still have to test it under load, but it looks
might be brinign flex aboard too I am
stoked about that.
Adam H
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 05:33:45 -0500, Michael Dinowitz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just finished the final tests on asynchronous logging for House of Fusion
and the results are fantastic! Having the logging operations 'thrown
A thought just came to me. Many people use CF for logging and the logging
'takes up' time on a page, slowing it down. Why bother? Most logging is just
posting information to a DB and returns nothing to the page. Here's my
solution to logging being a bottleneck: Asynchronous logging.
When you want
. Why bother? Most logging is just
posting information to a DB and returns nothing to the page. Here's my
solution to logging being a bottleneck: Asynchronous logging.
When you want to log a page, you just call an asynchronous gateway on CF 7
and pass it all the info you want to log. If it fails
This is a very good idea expanding on Michael's also very good idea.
-Original Message-
From: Barney Boisvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 3:14 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Asynchronous logging
Or just log to a memory structure, and then have a scheduled
But a crash of CF/Machine will still result in loss of data and the
scheduler in CF is based on a CFHTTP call which is basically a double
overhead.
On the other hand, I totally forgot that gateways are enterprise only. This
makes your solution more of an option for those not on enterprise.
Or
logging
This is a very good idea expanding on Michael's also very good idea.
-Original Message-
From: Barney Boisvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 3:14 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Asynchronous logging
Or just log to a memory structure, and then have a scheduled
This was the first use case we thought of, when we thought of the cfml
gateway. I think it's a great use of the gateway.
---nimer
-Original Message-
From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 4:04 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Asynchronous logging
But a crash of CF/Machine will still result in loss of data
Does that happen often? I can't remember the last time it's happend
to me (at least a couple years). We rarely cycle down CF (maybe 6-8
times a year), but that's of more concern than random crashes, and
Application.cfc addresses the
to a DB and returns nothing to the page. Here's my
solution to logging being a bottleneck: Asynchronous logging.
When you want to log a page, you just call an asynchronous gateway on CF 7
and pass it all the info you want to log. If it fails, it fails. If it
succeeds then it has all the info
But a crash of CF/Machine will still result in loss of data
Does that happen often? I can't remember the last time it's happend
to me (at least a couple years). We rarely cycle down CF (maybe 6-8
times a year), but that's of more concern than random crashes, and
Application.cfc addresses
Must have missed that in the notes. If I thought of it or knew of it back
when we started, I'd have put it into effect first thing.
This was the first use case we thought of, when we thought of the cfml
gateway. I think it's a great use of the gateway.
I'd be using asych CFC's on a gateway for all my logging if I had a
copy of Enterprise...
As it is, I'm using WDDX and the application scope... granted, it's
not all that efficient in terms of memory use, but it's not a terribly
high-traffic system and at the moment it's got horsepower to spare.
PS - Michael, if you want I can write something up for Fusion
Authority... no problem.
Let me know the format, what you want, blah blah blah, offlist?
Thanks!
J
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:23:53 -0600, Jared Rypka-Hauer - CMG, LLC
Yeah, that's true. You could dispatch the request from cron,
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 2:04 PM
Subject: Asynchronous logging
A thought just came to me. Many people use CF for logging and the logging
'takes up' time on a page, slowing it down. Why bother? Most logging is
just
posting information to a DB and returns nothing to the page. Here's my
I just don't like running extra processes if I can help it
Who is to say that you don't have users hitting the refresh button
constantly?
M!ke
~|
Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking
Any logger should trap inbound emails and verify them against a stored
list... hence, you've got a built-in differentiator for VIEWS and
VISITS (rather along the sitemeter.com paradigm). What's interesting
to me is the fact that I had built this, and intended to extend it for
out site and for a
Ummm... ok...
Maybe trapping IPs is a better idea than trapping emails. Trapping
emails is hard to do if you're not a mail server or something...
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:05:54 -0600, Jared Rypka-Hauer - CMG, LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any logger should trap inbound emails and verify them
18 matches
Mail list logo
