I would not use xtree if I were you, .. xtree has some serious issues
which are unresolvable in MSIE due to browser engine limits. It has to
do with the amount of images xtree uses for rendering. I have a treeview
available for the ones who need one. This is version 1, and version 2
currently is
This looks really cool but very complicated ... Do you have any
examples of this being used with coldfusion? That was the one thing I
really liked about CFTree was that it was easy to deploy.
Thanks,
- Charles
On Sep 15, 2004, at 4:28 PM, Brook Davies wrote:
Have you tried using something
I did look at CFMX 6.1 but I found a problem (BUG) with the way to
handles values containing a comma. What happens is if a value contains
a comma it places the value in under the right parent according to the
Tree but it also creates a new root entry as well.
- Charles
On Sep 15, 2004, at 4:51
What would you suggest?
Thanks,
- Charles
On Sep 15, 2004, at 11:40 PM, Micha Schopman wrote:
I strongly suggest not using Erik's treeview. It is not stable and
contains some serious bugs which cannot be solved because they depend
on
buggy browser functionality.
Micha Schopman
Software
I strongly suggest not using Erik's treeview. It is not stable and
contains some serious bugs which cannot be solved because they depend on
buggy browser functionality.
Micha Schopman
Software Engineer
Modern Media, Databankweg 12 M, 3821 ALAmersfoort
Tel 033-4535377, Fax 033-4535388
KvK
Hello,
I was wondering if someone could help me out, I'm running CFMX 6.0
update 3 on linux and I'm using CFTree to manipulate my OpenLDAP
directory. My performance tuning questions are if/how can I speed-up
the load times I have a test tree that displays 1500+ computer accounts
under one of
Have you tried using something other than cftree. You could try
http://webfx.eae.net/dhtml/xtree/...
Brook
At 04:11 PM 9/15/2004, you wrote:
Hello,
I was wondering if someone could help me out, I'm running CFMX 6.0
update 3 on linux and I'm using CFTree to manipulate my OpenLDAP
directory. My
Hello,
I was wondering if someone could help me out, I'm running CFMX 6.0
update 3 on linux and I'm using CFTree to manipulate my OpenLDAP
directory. My performance tuning questions are if/how can I speed-up
the load times I have a test tree that displays 1500+ computer accounts
under one of
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:11:33 -0700, Charles Heizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was wondering if someone could help me out, I'm running CFMX 6.0
update 3 on linux and I'm using CFTree to manipulate my OpenLDAP
directory. My performance tuning questions are if/how can I speed-up
the load times I
Running CFMX on JRun, the J2EE way, on a winblows 2000 server box.I'm trying to pull the perf data via the performances MMC snap in for CFMX and get nada.I can see ColdFusion MX Server in the Performance object dropdown and I can see the list of coubnters, but I can't choose any of them.I see the
://www.macromedia.com/support/coldfusion/ts/documents/metrics_logging.ht
m
http://www.macromedia.com/support/coldfusion/ts/documents/metrics_logging.h
tm
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 11:26 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CFMX performance data MMC thingy
' .Someone have suggestions?How does one load test their apps now using the J2EE version?
Doug
-Original Message-
From: Debbie Dickerson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 11:39 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX performance data MMC thingy
Performance monitor
Dickerson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 11:39 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX performance data MMC thingy
Performance monitor integration is not available in the J2EE
configuration:
http://livedocs.macromedia.com/coldfusion/6.1/htmldocs/basico24.htm
http
Subject: RE: CFMX performance data MMC thingy
thanks debbie.Teh tech note helped get something.
But in the end this sucks!I can't use the fancy windows tool for perf monitoringmy event log is filled with the below errors, one entry every min or two 24x7 and the Perf Monitor MMC tool has CFMX
Running CFMX on JRun, the J2EE way, on a winblows 2000 server box.I'm trying to pull the perf data via the performances MMC snap in for CFMX and get nada.I can see ColdFusion MX Server in the Performance object dropdown and I can see the list of coubnters, but I can't choose any of them.I see the
I've raised the size of the template cache to 400 and raised the running thread count
to 200 (from 200 and 96 respectively). Today we had several serious overloads at peak
time (22k hits / hour, 500 connections).
Alan
~|
and that the code inside of the lock is as little and
as fast as possible.
-Tim
-Original Message-
From: Alan Ford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 11:35 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CFMX performance issue
I've been an avid reader of this and other lists for ages
What version of CFMX?
Updater 3. It reports as -
ColdFusion Server Enterprise 6,0,0,58500
Alan Ford
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription:
Template cache is in KBs. You sure you're not referring to cached
queries?
I don't think so.
cfadmin for cfmx, page 2 caching. First item is 'Template cache size (number of
templates)'.
cached queries is also a number rather than an amount of memory - the number of
queries to cache (max
but I think at
the very least it shows that 200 simultaneous threads is massive overkill.
Ok, already :-)
Forget 200 - I've reset it to 96.
Now, to everyone who is saying that 96 is too high my own experience of trying to keep
the site running smoothly at all costs is that an SRR of 96 is
If you can, try increasing your trusted cache size first
Mmmm - we don't use trusted cache as I find it a pain in the We have too many
changes to employ that. We do have template caching. Now, I had this set to 200 files,
which I think is more than the number of cfm / cfc files that we
I agree that your number of simultaneous threads is really high. I
think that Ben Forta once recommended only 3 threads per CPU. That
seems a little low for me.
I would lower the threads to a reasonable level
See my reply to Trey - I don't want to lower the SRR below 96 as I know it will
In any case, I would consider moving to 6.1 as it has the latest bug fixes.
I'm sure we're all interested to see if your problem persists after that :)
Me too!
I wish I could just dive in and upgrade, but I suppose I really ought to put it on the
dev server and run serious load tests. Boring
It also sounds as if youre approaching the limit of this configuration.
Well, I agree with that, but my point is that we shouldn't be. We have one of these
dual Xeon processors with hyper threading that makes it look and act like a quad
processor. It has 1gb of ram and is using 625mb. The only
: Monday, August 11, 2003 1:18 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CFMX performance issue
I've raised the size of the template cache to 400 and raised the running
thread count to 200 (from 200 and 96 respectively). Today we had several
serious overloads at peak time (22k hits / hour, 500 connections).
Alan
It might well be that enough threads queue up waiting for locks that
your system is overwhelmed...
I'd really recommend upgrading to CFMX 6.1 as soon as you can.
Hi Sean,
I will push forward with 6.1 asap, but if the problem were with locks wouldn't I
expect the thread trace to be saying
On Monday, Aug 11, 2003, at 10:25 US/Pacific, Alan Ford wrote:
We have loads with session scope, but I can't recall any that are
anything other than short and sweet (I'll check the code).
Note that there was a bug in CFMX where a lock on session scope
actually behaved more like a lock on
, 2003 4:36 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CFMX performance issue
What version of CFMX?
Updater 3. It reports as -
ColdFusion Server Enterprise 6,0,0,58500
Alan Ford
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid
Hah. Well I'll be damned. CF5 was in kilobytes. Never thought to re-read
the text. ;-)
Stace
-Original Message-
From: Alan Ford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 7:27 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CFMX performance issue
Template cache is in KBs. You sure you're
This isn't a scientific assessment by any means but...any chance you can
get RedSky in production? (6.1) - After a QA process of course ;)
...there's huge performance improvements in there...
It's certainly something we're doing. I've asked a colleague to download it and put it
on a dev server
If you can, try increasing your trusted cache size first.
My second thoughts on this are - yes, I've upped it to 400 but my gut feel is that it
will make no difference. We had this problem before we were using the template cache
and since. We get the problem out of the blue, after it has been
This isn't a scientific assessment by any means but...any chance you can
get RedSky in production? (6.1) - After a QA process of course ;)
...there's huge performance improvements in there...
It's certainly something we're doing. I've asked a colleague to download it and put it
on a dev server
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:43 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX performance issue
Simultaneous threads in the CF admin is set to 400 !?
The traffic on our CF servers is not as high as yours, although peak
hours are close, and we've only got ours set to 10
instead of cffile action=READ
file=c:/somwhere/maybe/abc.txt variable=def
you might try cfsavecontent var=defcfinclude
template=/maybe/abc.txt/cfsavecontent
Depending on whether or not the abc.txt file is dynamically created, the
second suggestion might be slower (although not _as_ slow
]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 5:35 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CFMX performance issue
Dre,
Alan be reasonable, lower your thread count man!!
I have, I have - it's back to 96.
The results of my trials and errors bear out what you say. At
96 it normally makes no difference, we run
What version of CFMX?
Updater 3. It reports as -
ColdFusion Server Enterprise 6,0,0,58500
Alan Ford
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4
Subscription:
If you can, try increasing your trusted cache size first. I'm not personally as
knowledgeable about trusted cache as some other folks, but I've heard that it's
optimal if possible for
the trusted cache size to be larger than the sum size of your
coldfusion templates on CF5 -- not sure how that
]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:54 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CFMX performance issue
It also sounds as if youre approaching the limit of this configuration.
Well, I agree with that, but my point is that we shouldn't be. We have one
of these dual Xeon processors with hyper threading that makes it look
See, I've already forgotten about that 6.0 time lag. How quickly I forget.
DRE
-Original Message-
From: Tim Blair [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 8:41 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX performance issue
instead of cffile action=READ
file=c:/somwhere
On Tuesday, Aug 12, 2003, at 11:15 US/Pacific, Alan Ford wrote:
I will push forward with 6.1 asap, but if the problem were with locks
wouldn't I expect the thread trace to be saying 'waiting for lock' 60
times rather than 'waiting for template cache' 60 times?
Since 6.1 provides a new
This sounds like a CFLOCK problem. Do you have any exclusive locks in
your code?
Hi Tim,
(just in case anybody is wondering, I did not just repost all my replies to this
thread).
We do have many exclusive locks. We have one with app scope (we have only one module
which writes app variables,
Since 6.1 provides a new compilation engine, there may well be changes
in the template cache too. At least if you're on 6.1, you'll be assured
that the locking is *not* causing your problem...
I've now got 6.1 loaded on a dev server (only problem was that it bleated about MDAC
not being a
Today was interesting. Our telecom provider decided they were going to do some work on
our link to the internet and as a consequence the site was down for some time. When it
came back all hell was let loose as people tried to do the enquiries and place orders
that they'd been unable to do for a
-
From: Alan Ford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 1:19 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CFMX performance issue
but I think at
the very least it shows that 200 simultaneous threads is massive overkill.
Ok, already :-)
Forget 200 - I've reset it to 96.
Now, to everyone who
I'm curious to see how ours would react under that setting hehe. Next
time I'm in the lab I'll try and fire it up for kicks and see what
happens.
Stace
-Original Message-
From: Alan Ford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:19 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CFMX
Dre,
Alan be reasonable, lower your thread count man!!
I have, I have - it's back to 96.
The results of my trials and errors bear out what you say. At 96 it normally makes no
difference, we run with 15 requests most of the time. When it does make a difference
(and it's not when we get
Depending on whether or not the abc.txt file is dynamically created, the
second suggestion might be slower (although not _as_ slow now with 6.1)
due to compilation.
All of the files we write to the legacy systems have a unique file name and dynamic
content. It's basically a query based on
Hi Alan, this may interest you. Perhaps what youre seeing with the
threading is described here in which case 6.1 may solve your problems.
http://www.macromedia.com/support/coldfusion/ts/documents/cfmx_hang_issues.
I've had a read and it doesn't sound like what we are getting. When I did the
Services - Rice University
-Original Message-
From: Stacy Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:43 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX performance issue
Simultaneous threads in the CF admin is set to 400 !?
The traffic on our CF servers is not as high
and important, but a different approach to
locking may fix your problem (especially since I/O accesses take so long).
-Tim
-Original Message-
From: Trey Rouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 1:12 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX performance issue
OK, setting
Simultaneous threads in the CF admin is set to 400 !?
No, sorry, 200. I've experimented with 20 (which is what we had on CF5 and until we
started having problems), various other settings, settling on 96 (problems diminish -
most often it recovers without queuing threads) and as of today in
11, 2003 1:18 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CFMX performance issue
I've raised the size of the template cache to 400 and raised the running
thread count to 200 (from 200 and 96 respectively). Today we had several
serious overloads at peak time (22k hits / hour, 500 connections).
Alan
It also sounds as if youre approaching the limit of this configuration.
Well, I agree with that, but my point is that we shouldn't be. We have one of these
dual Xeon processors with hyper threading that makes it look and act like a quad
processor. It has 1gb of ram and is using 625mb. The only
If you can, try increasing your trusted cache size first
Mmmm - we don't use trusted cache as I find it a pain in the We have too many
changes to employ that. We do have template caching. Now, I had this set to 200 files,
which I think is more than the number of cfm / cfc files that we
I've been an avid reader of this and other lists for ages, but this is the
first time I've needed to ask something.
A client has been having awful problems handling high loads. What happens is
that out of the blue CFMX (which has been happily servicing the same level
of load with c5 running
If you can, try increasing your trusted cache size first.
My second thoughts on this are - yes, I've upped it to 400 but my gut feel is that it
will make no difference. We had this problem before we were using the template cache
and since. We get the problem out of the blue, after it has been
Subject: CFMX performance issue
Hi Alan, this may interest you. Perhaps what youre seeing with the
threading is described here in which case 6.1 may solve your problems.
http://www.macromedia.com/support/coldfusion/ts/documents/cfmx_hang_issues
.
I've had a read and it doesn't sound like what
Template cache is in KBs. You sure you're not referring to cached
queries?
Stace
-Original Message-
From: Alan Ford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:13 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CFMX performance issue
Simultaneous threads in the CF admin is set to 400
Worth a try. Good luck.
DRE
-Original Message-
From: Alan Ford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 11:16 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CFMX performance issue
Hi Alan, this may interest you. Perhaps what youre seeing with the
threading is described here in which case 6.1
[I had a problem posting my reply to this - sorry if it's duplicated]
OK, setting threads up higher isn't usually a smart thing.
Hi Trey,
Up to about 3 weeks ago I would have agreed with you, and we had our limit for
Simiultaneous Running Requests (let's call it SRR) set to 20.
As part of a
luck!
DRE
-Original Message-
From: Alan Ford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 6:44 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CFMX performance issue
I've been an avid reader of this and other lists for ages, but this is the
first time I've needed to ask something.
A client has been
What version of CFMX?
Stace
-Original Message-
From: Alan Ford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 8:44 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CFMX performance issue
I've been an avid reader of this and other lists for ages, but this is
the
first time I've needed to ask something
I've been an avid reader of this and other lists for ages, but this is the
first time I've needed to ask something.
A client has been having awful problems handling high loads. What happens is
that out of the blue CFMX (which has been happily servicing the same level
of load with c5 running
This is CFMX Pro, not any of the J2EE versions.
That doesn't make any significant difference for your
purposes, I don't think.
According to what I have read, CFMX for J2EE has been
optimized to perform better and scale better than CFMX
Standalone -- especially for multiple-CPU
As we all know, CFMX compiles to Java Bytecode and gets
cached this way. Therefore, CFMX should be considerably
faster than CF5. However, a friend of mine did a very
simple perfornance test using CFMX that had NO database
interaction (just looping and finding prime numbers) and
didn't
As we all know, CFMX compiles to Java Bytecode and gets cached this way. Therefore,
CFMX should be considerably faster than CF5. However, a friend of mine did a very
simple perfornance test using CFMX that had NO database interaction (just looping and
finding prime numbers) and didn't see
Subject: CFMX Performance
As we all know, CFMX compiles to Java Bytecode and gets
cached this way. Therefore, CFMX should be considerably
faster than CF5. However, a friend of mine did a very simple
perfornance test using CFMX that had NO database interaction
(just looping and finding
On Thursday, January 9, 2003, at 03:54 PM, Dave Watts wrote:
This is CFMX Pro, not any of the J2EE versions.
That doesn't make any significant difference for your purposes, I don't
think.
According to what I have read, CFMX for J2EE has been optimized to
perform better and scale better
On Thursday, Jan 9, 2003, at 15:12 US/Pacific, Fregas wrote:
As we all know, CFMX compiles to Java Bytecode and gets cached this
way. Therefore, CFMX should be considerably faster than CF5.
However, a friend of mine did a very simple perfornance test using
CFMX that had NO database
We've got redhat 7.2 installed on Apache 1.3.22 and have having some
performance issues with Cold Fusion MX (as soon and we get more than 3-4
users, everything tanks it. - 30 page render times) .
Is anyone else having some of the same issues? Looking at the boxes, we
have about 70 threads opened
I think there's issues with the CFMX apache connector on 1.3.x , can u try
Apache 2?
Stace
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:RBickham;simplot.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 1:03 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Linux CFMX - performance issues jvm question
We've got
: Linux CFMX - performance issues jvm question
I think there's issues with the CFMX apache connector on 1.3.x , can u try
Apache 2?
Stace
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:RBickham;simplot.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 1:03 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Linux CFMX
Crap, can't people just answer a question on this list
without flaming?
I was just being honest, in a slightly sarcastic way...
You have to admit though, NOTHING is essential - if you're happy with
your current version, then stick with it, but you've got to remember
that your competitors will
Yup, you're right. Well in that case on with the ensuing flame war.
First the caveats; CFMX has not been tuned for performance yet according
to MM.
With that aside, I have been working with Neo since the alpha days and
have seen it change quite a bit since then. During that time I have
learned
Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:11 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX)
Yup, you're right. Well in that case on with the ensuing flame war.
First the caveats; CFMX has not been tuned for performance yet according
to MM.
With that aside, I have
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX)
So, in a small company like mine, where I have maybe 5 people using CF
at once on an intranet application, (I also use CF from a shared host)
there is no advantage to going to MX? I'm still waiting for a great
reason to upgrade to CF 5.0
At 11:29 AM 4/29/2002 -0400, you wrote:
So, in a small company like mine, where I have maybe 5 people using CF
at once on an intranet application, (I also use CF from a shared host)
there is no advantage to going to MX? I'm still waiting for a great
reason to upgrade to CF 5.0.
Performance
So, in a small company like mine, where I have maybe 5
people using CF at once on an intranet application, (I
also use CF from a shared host) there is no advantage
to going to MX? I'm still waiting for a great reason
to upgrade to CF 5.0.
Sure, there are lots of reasons! They're not
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:39 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX)
So, in a small company like mine, where I have maybe 5
people using CF at once on an intranet application, (I
also use CF from a shared host) there is no advantage
. I wish it was,
though.
- Matt Small
-Original Message-
From: Jeffry Houser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:33 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX)
At 11:29 AM 4/29/2002 -0400, you wrote:
So, in a small company like mine, where I have
Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX)
Also think about the performance that you're seeing right now.
On first run, a CFMX page compiles. The pages are no longer interpreted on the fly.
This means your initial First Hit is going to take a few seconds, but every request
after this is going
TH em and use em all the time :)
TH Tim Heald
TH ACP/CCFD :)
TH Application Development
TH www.schoollink.net
-Original Message-
From: Matthew R. Small [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:30 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX)
So
No performance advantage really. You should upgrade for the new features
though.
-Matt
-Original Message-
From: Matthew R. Small [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 8:30 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX)
So, in a small company like
that the performance is the same. It
is *not*.
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:45 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX)
No performance advantage really. You should upgrade for the
new features
though
://www.evolt.org/article/Scalability_s_New_Meaning/21/23896/index.ht
ml.
-Matt
-Original Message-
From: Jesse Noller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 8:39 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX)
Also think about the performance that you're
, April 29, 2002 10:45 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX)
No performance advantage really. You should upgrade for the new features
though.
-Matt
-Original Message-
From: Matthew R. Small [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 8:30 AM
To: CF-Talk
Well, it would be silly to make a program slower or indeed the same
speed as CF5!
I can see the headline now - New ColdFusion MX, now the same speed as
CF5 - upgrade now!
;-)
Neil Clark
Team Macromedia
http://www.macromedia.com/go/team
Announcing Macromedia MX!!
--
. - yeah yeah, I know it's not optimized. But let's be honest, as a
rule, JSP is pretty doggy.
-Original Message-
From: Jesse Noller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 10:39 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX)
Also think about the performance
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX)
So, in a small company like mine, where I have maybe 5
people using CF at once on an intranet application, (I
also use CF from a shared host) there is no advantage
to going to MX? I'm still waiting for a great reason
to upgrade
: Jesse Noller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:54 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX)
Matt, here is where you and I disagree alot:
CF 5 performance than 4.5.1, hands down. Period.
Hopefully, when we *release* CFMX, CFMX will be CF5
Scalability is simply not the issue it was back in
the day ...
And even back in the day it wasn't the issue. Otherwise, writing your apps
directly within API extensions would've been where the development happened,
not scripting languages. Or maybe everyone would've been like STEVE GIBSON,
with no sarcasm Which features are so essential that I need to
upgrade?
- Matt Small
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:45 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX)
No performance advantage really. You
, 2002 10:52 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX)
It's a great goal, but have a look at the other folks in the J2EE world
who have been at it a long time. Again, on a single server, a properly
built CF 5 application is going to out perform one built on top of JRun,
WebSphere
in
defending CF.
Robert Everland III
Dixon Ticonderoga
Web Developer Extraordinaire
-Original Message-
From: Mark A. Kruger - CFG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 12:03 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX)
Jesse,
Yes, subsequent requests
11:45 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX)
No performance advantage really. You should upgrade for the new features
though.
-Matt
-Original Message-
From: Matthew R. Small [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 8:30 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:45 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX)
No performance advantage really. You should upgrade for the new features
though.
-Matt
-Original Message-
From
So, in a small company like mine, where I have maybe 5 people using CF
at once on an intranet application, (I also use CF from a shared host)
there is no advantage to going to MX? I'm still waiting for a great
reason to upgrade to CF 5.0.
Talking about the demo of MX that I saw Jeremy
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 12:27 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX)
with no sarcasm Which features are so essential that I need to
upgrade?
- Matt Small
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 29
9:26 AM
Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX)
with no sarcasm Which features are so essential that I need to
upgrade?
- Matt Small
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:45 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX
How is this different than calling a CFM page via cfhttp?
-Original Message-
From: Mike Chambers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 12:01 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX)
ColdFusionMX components.
create the code once and then call
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
