might have to just run it in production and see how it fares..
Brook
-Original Message-
From: Sean Corfield [mailto:seancorfi...@gmail.com]
Sent: June-13-11 4:06 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Fuseguard processing time
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Brook Davies wrote:
> And my t
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Brook Davies wrote:
> And my test was done under zero load, so under peak load this number could
> go up.
It could also go down. Until you test, you won't know.
Under heavy load, the HotSpot compiler in the JVM may work to your
benefit and speed things up. You
Well ideally you have a non-development staging server, which closely mimics
your live production server, against which you can run load testing to help
determine this.
The other question is, how secure is your code? If it's riddled with
vulnerabilities then it might be safer to take this hit,
11 10:02 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Fuseguard processing time
Of course, a measure on single hits is not a good measure of the performance
impact. You might be happyish adding a 200ms average at peak load to a high
traffic site - but who knows what the real impact is without a proper
performance
Of course, a measure on single hits is not a good measure of the
performance impact. You might be happyish adding a 200ms average at
peak load to a high traffic site - but who knows what the real impact
is without a proper performance test / pushing it live and hoping...
Dominic
On 13 June 2011
LOL, ok well perhaps I am just used to see much worse loading times on most
peoples sites.
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Peter Boughton wrote:
>
> > 200ms is still a good page load time.
> Not when the original was 20ms!
>
> A page that takes 0.2s to load is no longer "instant", there's a de
> 200ms is still a good page load time.
Not when the original was 20ms!
A page that takes 0.2s to load is no longer "instant", there's a detectable
delay, which isn't good.
Does it really take 145ms to check for SQL Injection? :/
What's it doing that takes that long!?
~
200ms is still a good page load time. I wish most of our customers had pages
that load that quick :-)
consider what it is doing, checking all scopes for injection, which is all
string comparison (regex I presume), so that is heavy work.
Pete did say it would add about 200ms, so I guess he was righ
I finally got around to getting an evaluation version of fuseGuard up and
running on my dev server. Install was easy, so that was good. On my dev
server, fuseguard is adding approx. 200 ms to each page load. Super simple
pages with no form variable input went from 18-20ms to 190-200ms..
The v
I finally got around to getting an evaluation version of fuseGuard up and
running on my dev server. Install was easy, so that was good. On my dev
server, fuseguard is adding approx. 200 ms to each page load. Super simple
pages with no form variable input went from 18-20ms to 190-200ms..
The v
10 matches
Mail list logo
