e [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 10:48 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources? (CODE)
>
> This is great.. but its still not close to CF 5.0 "740ms" which was posted
> on here yesterday.
>
> Jesse/Sean
>
or give us some guidence on what do?
Joe
- Original Message -
From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 2:52 AM
Subject: RE: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources? (CODE)
> On another machine we
10:22 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources? (CODE)
>
> P3 866 384 RAM CFMX (2543ms)
>
> Using the below code on the same machine (5908ms)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> tempDoc = XmlParse(temp);
>
To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources? (CODE)
>
> I guess this proves both our tests..(Load Test/Ticket Count) for
wddx
> on
> CFMX and CF5.0
> Under normal load (5-10 hits per minute) this might not be an issue...
but
> for high
> traffic sites/ Load tes
Craig Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 12:59 PM
Subject: RE: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources? (CODE)
> >> I don't have CF5 to run it on but hopefully some folks here
> >>will be able
> >
On Wednesday, July 31, 2002, at 09:11 AM, Sean A Corfield wrote:
> I tested this on a PowerMac G4 800MHz with
> http://127.0.0.1/xfile.cfm?loop=
> 1000 and it consistently executed in 4000ms.
>
First, the last line of the WDDX file needs > added as first char.
Second, same config as Sean
Runn
http://www.montarasoftware.com/
V: 415-577-8070
F: 415-341-8906
P: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 9:11 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources? (CODE)
>
> On Tuesday, July
Wow. It looks like we can put evaluatives between hashes again.
Shades of CF3.
To answer your question, in CF4-5, you cannot put evaluatives between
hashes.
- Original Message -
From: Craig Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 10:59 am
Subject: RE: CFMX
>> I don't have CF5 to run it on but hopefully some folks here
>>will be able
>>to confirm / deny the speed differences.
CFMX
p3 733
Debugging on
No Trusted Cache
3400 ms (varies a little, like maybe 100ms)
CF 5 same machine
740 ms
Also, to run on my cf5 install I hade to modify this:
>>
/test2.cfm?loop=1000
CF MX
P3 500
Debugging on
No Trusted Cache
5709 ms - 6629 ms
I don't have CF 5.0 either.
-Original Message-
From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 11:11 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources? (CODE
On Wednesday, July 31, 2002, at 09:11 , Sean A Corfield wrote:
> I've put together a very simple test to time wddx2cfml on various systems.
> ...
>
I put both files in a 'bacfug' folder inside my web root - old habits die
hard :)
"If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive."
-- M
On Tuesday, July 30, 2002, at 10:27 , Joe Eugene wrote:
> Below are the details of the code that is running slow on CFMX.
I've put together a very simple test to time wddx2cfml on various systems.
I don't have CF5 to run it on but hopefully some folks here will be able
to confirm / deny
Joe Eugene wrote:
> Noticed the "evaluate" as well but thats very minor.. right? 10ms maybe?
Yeah, but it may be yet another 10 ms. If you have a lot of traffic and
there need to be a lot of evaluates it should introduce extra CPU load.
Jesse
__
On Tuesday, July 30, 2002, at 10:27 , Joe Eugene wrote:
> Below are the details of the code that is running slow on CFMX.
Thank you for (finally) posting some example code and data that we can try
out. I'll try to have a look at this tomorrow (although, as I say, I don't
have CF5 to test
Noticed the "evaluate" as well but thats very minor.. right? 10ms maybe?
Joe
-Original Message-
From: Jesse Houwing [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 1:45 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources? (CODE)
> // Pass
> // Pass the structure back to the caller
> x = Evaluate("caller.#Attributes.ReturnStruct# = strTemp");
You could start by removing this evaluate (it shouldn't matter that
much, but should make it faster if written as:
Jesse
_
ercial
>(PDF)</A></P>name='CONTENTITEMID'>11name='CONTENTTYPEID'>PMPname='DESCRIPTION'>MS Commercial have mechanical non-computing
>specifically designed for industrial, and fleet
>applications.name='FILES'>com.jpg,P103.pdfname='KEYWORDS'>, industrial, fleet, north
>
Commercial2A2.8_MS_com.jpgP1903.pdfabc>42PUB
--------------------
---
-Original Message-
From: Jesse Noller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 4:17 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE:
Thanks for your HELP & TIME Dave!
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 11:35 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources?
> If i had the time to break code and write test cases and
> docs on WDDX ...CFMX
> If i had the time to break code and write test cases and
> docs on WDDX ...CFMX.. i would have done so... have to
> work...on development like everybody else on this list..
> and then do testing on my spare time I was hoping some
> MM folks would know something on internals... that was t
Taking all CPU Resources?
> Code Code Code I actually explained in detail what the
> code was doing...earlier
Well, you certainly didn't provide anything as clear as what you've provided
here. Even here, you'd be better off posting the actual code, I think. So,
yes, "Co
Regards - Mike Brunt, CTO
Webapper
http://www.webapper.com
Downey CA Office
562.243.6255
AIM - webappermb
"Webapper - Making the NET work"
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 6:07 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX Taki
> Code Code Code I actually explained in detail what the
> code was doing...earlier
Well, you certainly didn't provide anything as clear as what you've provided
here. Even here, you'd be better off posting the actual code, I think. So,
yes, "Code Code Code". If you want answers to programmin
Original Message-
> From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 3:30 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources?
>
> "I have successfully been able to achieve great performance out of
WDDX
> intensive applications u
Joe Eugene wrote:
> Code Code Code I actually explained in detail what the code was
> doing...earlier
Code says more than an explanation. I submitted some code and within an
hour several people reproduced the exact bug which has been filed with
Macromedia (and I can go to bed). So far your
Hey Joe...
"3.Create a dynamic page... that gets the content from the database."
You mean to tell me that you're writing out a file so that the file can
retrieve more information from the db? Could you clarify this statement
please?
~Todd
: "Sean A Corfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources?
> On Tuesday, July 30, 2002, at 01:07 , Joe Eugene wrote:
> > You havent given out any peformance test
oe
- Original Message -
From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 5:15 PM
Subject: RE: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources?
> The use of WDDX was not a performance related one as obviously WD
ex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 1:57 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources?
>
> How about details on what you mean by...
>
> "successfully been able to achieve great performance"
> "intensive application
070
F: 415-341-8906
P: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 2:05 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources?
>
> > Sorry, I no longer work for the companies in quest
> Sorry, I no longer work for the companies in question, so I can't give
> exact details.
It doesn't have to be details about the work for the company itself. There
seems to be a lot of factors in determining whether your application(s) ran
with great performance (i.e. number of users, where you
tt Liotta
> President & CEO
> Montara Software, Inc.
> http://www.montarasoftware.com/
> V: 415-577-8070
> F: 415-341-8906
> P: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July
EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 1:14 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources?
>
> Can you give us some details?
>
> Is this performance equal in (CF 4.5, 5, and MX)?
> What software did you use for Load Testing? No of users? Machine? O
On Tuesday, July 30, 2002, at 01:07 , Joe Eugene wrote:
> You havent given out any peformance tests.. other than MM Perf brief
> I am NOT sure...you guys have any performance test for the details we
> are talking about here...What can you expect from developers..?
What? We're supposed to psychica
From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 4:08 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources?
>
> >
> > OK, that sounds like good progress so maybe we'll all stop ragging on
> you
> > :)
> You havent given out a
-
From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 1:35 PM
Subject: RE: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources?
> I have successfully been able to achieve great performance out of WDDX
> intensive applications us
(like the COM issue) yet
Unknown(TESTING).
Joe
- Original Message -
From: "Sean A Corfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources?
> On Tuesday, July 30, 2002, at
On Tuesday, July 30, 2002, at 10:14 , Joe Eugene wrote:
> The App am dealing with...WDDX is written to the database for
> Content MGMT,
> i didnt code this.. am not sure.. why the developer used this
> method..The data
> is even redundant.
Sounds like Spectra :)
Sean A C
On Tuesday, July 30, 2002, at 08:54 , Joe Eugene wrote:
> I havent come to a final test result.. but i think we are
> narrowing
> it
> down to the Complex Object(WDDX) returned from the data store
> that gets parsed out WDDX2CFML..
OK, that sounds like good progress so ma
From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 10:15 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources?
>
> Stace,
> No..Not Client Scope. That would be a real big
problem..(client
> scope WDDX)... if all this
> turns
e on that front...
Stace
-Original Message-
From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 1:15 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources?
Stace,
No..Not Client Scope. That would be a real big problem..(client
scope WDDX)... if all this
Message -
From: "Stacy Young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 12:10 PM
Subject: RE: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources?
> Hey Joe I'm curious...these objects...are they wddx packets stored in
client
> sco
Any WDDX implementation changes(Not in docs) will be helpful.
Thanks
Joe
- Original Message -
From: "Sean A Corfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources?
implementation changes(Not in docs) will be helpful.
Thanks
Joe
- Original Message -
From: "Sean A Corfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources?
> On Tuesday, J
On Tuesday, July 30, 2002, at 07:26 , Joe Eugene wrote:
> Do you know of any internal WDDX implementation differences
> between
> CFMX and CF5.0 .. CFMX
Er, yes, it was written in C/C++ in CF5 and it's been rewritten in Java in
CFMX. As has everything else. Read my lips Joe: CFM
ernal CFMX
implementation that would degrade performance compared to CF5.0?
Thanks
Joe
- Original Message -
From: "Sean A Corfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: CFMX Taking all CPU Resourc
On Monday, July 29, 2002, at 09:11 , Sean A Corfield wrote:
> On Monday, July 29, 2002, at 07:31 , Joe Eugene wrote:
>> MM's performance brief is probably based on optimized CFMX code
>> and maybe optimized CF.50 code.
> Nope. As far as I know it's the exact same code run on both CF5 and
On Monday, July 29, 2002, at 07:31 , Joe Eugene wrote:
> MM's performance brief is probably based on optimized CFMX code
> and maybe optimized CF.50 code.
Nope. As far as I know it's the exact same code run on both CF5 and CFMX.
I will ask the QA lab to confirm this.
"If you're not
> MM's performance brief is probably based on optimized
> CFMX code and maybe optimized CF.50 code. How do you
> think this is going to help any of us.. unless the docs
> say.. Change all your code to get "THIS" performance.
> Have you personally done any LOAD Testing with your CF5.0
> code (r
Exactly Todd.CFGRAPH will still work.. but looks funny.
Isnt this why we are all spending time testing..???
Joe
-Original Message-
From: Todd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 10:56 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Fwd: RE: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources?
Nevermind
Nevermind, I see.. is now ... (oh no!)
~Todd
>Why are "Graphs" deprecated...?
>
>~Todd
__
Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in
ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthor
At 10:31 PM 7/29/2002 -0400, Joe (again) wrote:
> Have you personally done any LOAD Testing with your CF5.0 code
> (run on CFMX) that uses almost all the features of CF5.0? WDDX?
> Functions?
> Graphs(of Course deprecated)? CFSCRIPT?
Why are "Graphs" deprecated...?
~Todd
ing.. hope will find out something.
Joe
-Original Message-
From: Chris Kief [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 2:59 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources?
Joe,
After reading your recent slew of posts, I feel compelled to speak up
(as others alread
/webstres.asp?frame=true
Optimizing code should be fairly easy.. once we can find the problem.
Thanks
Joe
- Original Message -
From: "Stacy Young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 7:10 AM
Subject: RE: CFMX Taking all CP
want
to try this tool out! Any suggestios ?
Thanks,
Mike
-Original Message-
From: Todd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 9:12 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources?
Joe you're not using the fusebox methodology by any chance ar
Stace,
I think we've been trying to tell him that since the beginning and he's
yet to do such. He's one of those guys that would rather sit and complain
than actually tracking down the problem. I think everyone on the list
that has confronted Joe has been more than helpful (except Joe, of
c
bject: RE: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources?
This is really funny over and over.. no facts/proofs of test by
anybody
I would really be exited and happy to know that CFMX Scales...
If i can see some facts/proofs.
Joe
-Original Message-
From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
tails on your behalf is making it
rather difficult. If you really want to get to the root of your issues,
give us a something more to go on.
Chris Kief
-Original Message-
From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 10:46 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFMX
ed and happy to know that CFMX Scales...
>If i can see some facts/proofs.
>
>Joe
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Sean A Corfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 11:05 PM
>To: CF-Talk
>Subject: Re: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources?
>
>
>
On Sunday, July 28, 2002, at 09:06 , Joe Eugene wrote:
> If you have personally done some convincing TESTS ... we would
> be happy to know your TEST results.
While I ran CF5 and CFMX (pre-release) on the same Win2K system, my
experience was that CFMX was faster (once the templates ha
Original Topic of the Thread.
Windows 2000 boxes for same CONTENT..
Testing done with "MICROSOFT WEB APPLICATION STRESS TOOL"
JRun.exe is whats taking all the CPU on CFMX box
Simulated 50 concurrent users on CFMX = average 85% CPU on 750Mhz
DUAL P3 Pr
y, July 28, 2002 11:29 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources?
On Sunday, July 28, 2002, at 08:24 , Joe Eugene wrote:
> This is really funny over and over.. no facts/proofs of test by
> anybody
We're still waiting for you to furnish your facts and proof Joe...
On Sunday, July 28, 2002, at 08:24 , Joe Eugene wrote:
> This is really funny over and over.. no facts/proofs of test by
> anybody
We're still waiting for you to furnish your facts and proof Joe...
> I would really be exited and happy to know that CFMX Scales...
> If i can see some facts
: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources?
On Sunday, July 28, 2002, at 05:57 , Joe Eugene wrote:
> I am having a hard time.. conveying the messsage..
Yes, so it seems :)
> We are talking about basic code in ColdFusion.. every answer i get
> is like.. Custom Tags..(oh for CF
On Sunday, July 28, 2002, at 05:57 , Joe Eugene wrote:
> I am having a hard time.. conveying the messsage..
Yes, so it seems :)
> We are talking about basic code in ColdFusion.. every answer i get
> is like.. Custom Tags..(oh for CFMX u need to do this.. or this is
> how you can Optimize.. for C
: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources?
On Saturday, July 27, 2002, at 01:58 , Joe Eugene wrote:
> eg i saw a statment like
> MM docs.. dont imply "/" anywhere.. so where "/" come from?
> it doesnt break the code.. so is this optimized CMFX?
Where did you see that statement?
On Saturday, July 27, 2002, at 01:58 , Joe Eugene wrote:
> eg i saw a statment like
> MM docs.. dont imply "/" anywhere.. so where "/" come from?
> it doesnt break the code.. so is this optimized CMFX?
Where did you see that statement? You need to start being a bit more
specific about things an
On Saturday, July 27, 2002, at 12:35 , Joe Eugene wrote:
> in cases where you can other wise.. i dont see.. how you
> can
Well, there's no real reason why cfscript should be faster (or slower)
than using tags now - it all compiles to similar Java code.
>
>
>
>
On Saturday, July 27, 2002, at 09:39 , Todd wrote:
> Sean Corfield is hosting the CFMX Best Practices:
> http://www.corfield.org/coldfusion/codingStandards.htm
Note that this document is about writing *maintainable* code more than
writing high-performance code. I may update the public document i
On Saturday, July 27, 2002, at 08:17 , Joe Eugene wrote:
>Simulated 50 concurrent users on CFMX = average 85% CPU on
> 750Mhz
> DUAL P3 Processor
>Simulated 50 concurrent users on CF5.0 = average 12% CPU on
> 600Mhz Single P3 Processor
Right, but that's 'just' CPU usage a
is this optimized CMFX?
>
>If this is the case Developers will have a lot of work..getting
>code optimized for CFMX...
>Joe
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 4:29 PM
>To: CF-Talk
>Subject: RE: CFMX
uly 27, 2002 4:29 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources?
> To make my point clear...I think Basic operations in
> CFMX show a degraded Performance under load...for
> specific settings..
> I am trying to do the research.. you guys might be
> right.. There might be
> To make my point clear...I think Basic operations in
> CFMX show a degraded Performance under load...for
> specific settings..
> I am trying to do the research.. you guys might be
> right.. There might be some internal CFMX settings
> that prove.. CFMX Scales better than... CF.50..
> Well..w
; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 12:46 PM
Subject: Fwd: RE: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources?
> > settings that prove.. CFMX Scales better than... CF.50..
> > Well..where are the MAGIC SETTINGS (MM docs.. dont think so!)..
> > P
> settings that prove.. CFMX Scales better than... CF.50..
> Well..where are the MAGIC SETTINGS (MM docs.. dont think so!)..
> Probably in the HEADof some ENGINEER MM LAIDOFF.
>Joe
Joe,
No offense, but ... when people start saying b.s. like this, I just start
to tune
ColdFusion Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Todd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 12:40 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources?
>Todd, great post, but how do we learn to optimize for MX? Trial and
>error? You can write cra
> for those people that have CFMX running take a stand and say, "Gee,
well..
> I've been running it for over 2 months and ... whew... does it fly."
>
I have been running CFMX in production since beta 3 with only minor
issues that were addressed in CFMX final.
I have recently starting working on a
>Todd, great post, but how do we learn to optimize for MX? Trial and
>error? You can write crappy slow code in any language, but a few hits
>as to how to optimize for MX sure would be nice.
Sean Corfield is hosting the CFMX Best Practices:
http://www.corfield.org/coldfusion/codingStandards.htm
shes per day on two development servers, but that is another story
and one that a fellow from MM started helping me try to figure out, but
I have not heard from him in a week.
-Original Message-
From: Todd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 10:42 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subje
t; in regards to
requests that take the most resources.
Stace
-Original Message-
From: Todd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 11:42 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources?
"The content/app was written for CF4.5..."
Again, it mi
fellow from MM started helping me try to figure out, but
I have not heard from him in a week.
-Original Message-
From: Todd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 10:42 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources?
"The content/app was written for
"The content/app was written for CF4.5..."
Again, it might be time to start thinking about streamlining for MX. I'm
*glad* you tested your application, at least I hope these specs below are
not coming from your production server. However, this shouldn't be your
source of frustration. This s
content/app was written for CF4.5 and we didnt write any CF5.0
optimized code.
Joe
-Original Message-
From: Todd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 10:12 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources?
Joe you're not using the fusebox methodolo
On Friday, July 26, 2002, at 11:55 , Joe Eugene wrote:
> This is really pityfull... CFMX! might do some EXTRA stuff.. but if it
> cant
> scale...atleast close to CF5.0... Why buy DAMN CFMX
I'm sorry you're so frustrated but CFMX definitely scales better than CF5.
I don't think you're reall
but perhaps there's a particular operation taking place that
>causes the memory spike.
>
>Stace
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 2:55 AM
>To: CF-Talk
>Subject: RE: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources?
&g
55 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources?
Alright guys.. i have tried almost what everybody generally knows
to CFMX perfomance..
COM, Trusted Cache, Caching template size, Compile takes time etc...
Is there anything else that has NOT been brought up? (MM Docs suck)
This is r
cant
scale...atleast close to CF5.0... Why buy DAMN CFMX
Sorry on my language.. but this is really frustrating!
Joe
-Original Message-
From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 8:41 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources?
No we are not
No we are not using any COM objects.
Joe
-Original Message-
From: Jesse Houwing [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 6:38 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources?
Joe Eugene wrote:
> None of the below have IMPROVED Performance.
> 1. Trusted
Joe Eugene wrote:
> None of the below have IMPROVED Performance.
> 1. Trusted Cache (Enabled)
> 2. Increased Template Cache Size (decrease Cache pops)
> 3. Decreased Consecutive Request to "5"
> 4. Restarted CF APP Service serveral times after setting changes.
>
> NONE of these have done any good
- Original Message -
From: "Jesse Houwing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 4:59 PM
Subject: Re: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources?
> Joe Eugene wrote:
> > Trusted Cache was NOT turned on either of the server
Joe Eugene wrote:
> Trusted Cache was NOT turned on either of the servers (CFMX or CF 5.0)
Try a run with trusted cache, this should make MX much faster and more
responsive.
Have you also tried lowering the number of consecutive requests? This
may prove helpful too. MX needs less than 5 with b
Trusted Cache was NOT turned on either of the servers (CFMX or CF 5.0)
Joe
- Original Message -
From: "Jesse Houwing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: CFMX Taking all CPU Resource
Joe Eugene wrote:
> The results were for TESTS THAT WERE RAN 15-18 HOURS AT A TIME.. So
> u know the pages have already been compiled and loaded.
With or without trusted cache?
Jesse
__
Signup for the Fusion Authority news ale
Brook Davies wrote:
> Yikes. Is this on the first past or after the pages are compiled? I will
> ask again, does any one have a script to pre compile all pages within a
> directory? This would be a nice option to have in the administrator or at
> least a executable provided by MM.
This came up
The results were for TESTS THAT WERE RAN 15-18 HOURS AT A TIME.. So
u know the pages have already been compiled and loaded.
Joe
- Original Message -
From: "Brook Davies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 4:15
Yikes. Is this on the first past or after the pages are compiled? I will
ask again, does any one have a script to pre compile all pages within a
directory? This would be a nice option to have in the administrator or at
least a executable provided by MM.
At 03:46 PM 26/07/02 -0400, you wrote
96 matches
Mail list logo
