Message-
From: Bob Hendren [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 14 December 2007 11:31
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Server performance problem since upgrading to CF8
Every since upgrading to CF8 I've been having a frustrating problem.
After starting CF, it will run for a while (sometimes serveral hours
On Friday 14 Dec 2007, Dan G. Switzer, II wrote:
Do you have any of CF8's Server Monitoring enabled? It's known to cause
performance issues and should only be used to debug problems;
You can (I'd argue should) have the first level of monitoring enabled.
--
Tom Chiverton
Helping to
Every since upgrading to CF8 I've been having a frustrating problem.
After
starting CF, it will run for a while (sometimes serveral hours, sometimes
less than an hour) at about 1% - 3% in terms of processor load. (It's a 2
cpu - 4 core system.) Then, all of a sudden, the processor load will jump
Every since upgrading to CF8 I've been having a frustrating problem. After
starting CF, it will run for a while (sometimes serveral hours, sometimes
less than an hour) at about 1% - 3% in terms of processor load. (It's a 2
cpu - 4 core system.) Then, all of a sudden, the processor load will
Kevin Pompei wrote:
Every since upgrading to CF8 I've been having a frustrating problem. After
starting CF, it will run for a while (sometimes serveral hours, sometimes
less than an hour) at about 1% - 3% in terms of processor load. (It's a 2
cpu - 4 core system.) Then, all of a sudden, the
You're correct. One core is at 100%.
On 10/29/07, James Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On a four core system, a CPU pegged at 25% means one core is at 100%;
CF has probably filled the JVM memory and is permanently garbage
collecting.
I agree with Dave - get FusionReactor and set a memory
Thanks Dave. I'll try this.
On 10/29/07, Dave Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone seen this, or have any ideas. BTW, I'm running the
standard edition of CF so I don't have access to the server monitor.
I suggest you invest in one of the other monitoring tools available -
SeeFusion or
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Pompei [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 9:53 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Server performance problem since upgrading to CF8
You're correct. One core is at 100%.
On 10/29/07, James Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On a four core system, a CPU
- and the general config of the server?
-Mark
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Pompei [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 9:53 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Server performance problem since upgrading to CF8
You're correct. One core is at 100%.
On 10/29/07, James Holmes
Kevin Pompei wrote:
Well I've isolated the problem down. It happens 1 hour and 7 minutes after
restart which it time that is set for the client stores to be purged. This
must be a bug in CF because once it starts the one CPU core is at 100% and
stays there even for days until the server is
Every since upgrading to CF8 I've been having a frustrating problem. After
starting CF, it will run for a while (sometimes serveral hours, sometimes
less than an hour) at about 1% - 3% in terms of processor load. (It's a 2
cpu - 4 core system.) Then, all of a sudden, the processor load will
Anyone seen this, or have any ideas. BTW, I'm running the
standard edition of CF so I don't have access to the server monitor.
I suggest you invest in one of the other monitoring tools available -
SeeFusion or FusionReactor. You will likely find the problem a lot faster,
and it'll pay for
On a four core system, a CPU pegged at 25% means one core is at 100%;
CF has probably filled the JVM memory and is permanently garbage
collecting.
I agree with Dave - get FusionReactor and set a memory alert threshold
in the crash prevention options.
On 10/30/07, Kevin Pompei [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kevin,
What codebase are you running on it?
Mark
On 10/30/07, Kevin Pompei [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Every since upgrading to CF8 I've been having a frustrating problem. After
starting CF, it will run for a while (sometimes serveral hours, sometimes
less than an hour) at about 1% - 3% in
You could also install the Dev version locally at and try running the code
with the server monitor turned on.
On 10/29/07, Kevin Pompei [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Every since upgrading to CF8 I've been having a frustrating
problem. After
starting CF, it will run for a while (sometimes serveral
Yes I agree,
I increased the loop count to 5000 and noticed that the StringBuffer method
ran 1/3 to 1/2 quicker than cfset a = a a bit more text, .
However when I tried again with a loop count of 500 StringBuffer method was
slower.
my code:
cfset jsbOutput = CreateObject( java,
Gert Franz wrote:
just change some text to something about 10 times larger and change
the 500 to maybe 5000 and then you'll find out how fast string buffer is
in comparison to CFMX strings...
Neat. I just did 2,000,000 string appends of a 26 character string,
resetting the string to
You can easily eliminate the evaluate() as a factor by replacing
cfset field = evaluate(resultSet.#ThisColumn#)
with
cfset field=resultSet[ThisColumn][resultSet.currentRow]
but it doesn't look like you're executing that line enough times to account for
the performance problem.
Reed
I have
to account
for
the performance problem.
Actually, for most people, it gets called for every field in every row.
I just did a comparison, and your method works out about the same.. in
one particular drop it did it in 50 seconds where the Evaluate() method
did it in 45 seconds.
I did solve most
scracth that, your method took 45 seconds, the evalute() method took 50
seconds. That was on a drop of about 2500 records.
Rick
~|
Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting,
up-to-date
scracth that, your method took 45 seconds, the evalute() method took 50
seconds.
The parania about evaluate is strictly a matter of philosophy.
The impact on performance is only marginal.
--
___
REUSE CODE! Use custom tags;
See
I have some code that dynamically generates CSV, TAB, and EXCEL (HTML
tables) from a query, and it is running pretty slowly. A lot slower
than I'd like it to. Essentially, I set a bunch of variables like
START_PAGE, END_PAGE, START_ROW, END_ROW, START_FIELD, and END_FIELD
that allow me to
-Original Message-
From: Rick Root [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:03 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Performance problem
I have some code that dynamically generates CSV, TAB, and EXCEL (HTML
tables) from a query, and it is running pretty slowly. A lot slower
than
.
...
Ben Nadel
www.bennadel.com
-Original Message-
From: Rick Root [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:03 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Performance problem
I have some code that dynamically generates CSV, TAB, and EXCEL (HTML
tables) from a query, and it is running pretty
-Talk
Subject: Performance problem
I have some code that dynamically generates CSV, TAB, and EXCEL (HTML
tables) from a query, and it is running pretty slowly. A lot slower
than I'd like it to. Essentially, I set a bunch of variables like
START_PAGE, END_PAGE, START_ROW, END_ROW, START_FIELD
://www.newatlanta.com/c/products/bluedragon/self_help/archiveSearch/show
Search
Josh
-Original Message-
From: Rick Root [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:03 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Performance problem
I have some code that dynamically generates CSV, TAB
and Information Technology
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Ben Nadel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:07 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Performance problem
When doing a lot of string concatenation, you should totally use
Ben, when would you use java.lang.StringBuffer as compared to
cfset a =
cfloop index=i from=1 to=500
cfset a = a some text
/cfloop
I found the above method faster.
Andrew.
When doing a lot of string concatenation, you should totally use the Java
string buffer:
cfset jsbOutput =
All,
I am in the process of moving a CF site from one server to another. The
new site is in CFMX7. I do not have access to the administrator
settings, as I have to work through someone in another department on
this. The problem is that I have ~8.5 seconds (+/- 0.2 seconds) delay
on each page
On 12/15/05, Cornillon, Matthieu (Consultant)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) In the CF Administrator, it seems that you set the client variable
store for the *server* and not for the specific CF application. Is that
correct? In other words, if I have two applications, named
application_one and
a database table, but it only does it as needed. Seems to work
well.
CFC pasted below if anybody's interested.
-Original Message-
From: Cornillon, Matthieu (Consultant)
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 16 December 2005 9:46 a.m.
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Performance Problem - Client
December 2005 10:07 a.m.
To: 'cf-talk@houseoffusion.com'
Subject: RE: Performance Problem - Client Variables
People seem to have no end of problems with client variables. One
problem is they are a database hit on every request whether you use them
or not. Another is that bots fill up your database
All,
Thanks for your input on the client variable problem I mentioned. Turns
out that the problem was that the client variable store table (in an
ODBC datasource) was not indexed properly. Never would have tracked
that down if you all hadn't given me the hints that you did. Major
problem
I need to ask the group for some help. For 2 years I have ran CF enterprise
and recently CFMX on a Dell Inspiron 5000 with a 600 MHz processor and 256
MB of Ram. It ran just fine as a demo machine. I then installed CFMX on my
HP Pavilion home machine, with a 1.1Ghz Proc and 128Mb of ram, once
-
From: John Coelho [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 7:12 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: CF Performance Problem
(snip)
I just purchased a HP Laptop with a 1.8 Gig Processor and 512
MB Ram running XP Pro, and it is Dog Slow. It is only slow
while executing SQL
35 matches
Mail list logo
