We are successfully using Verity on RH 2.1AS. (More info below).
Doug James
IT Developer / Webmaster
MUSC - Hollings Cancer Center
http://hcc.musc.edu
paris lundis wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone out there is using CF MX6.1 release on any Red Hat
> version while depending on Verity to provide
I don't have any experience with Website Pro, but I recommend you
Upgrade to 5.0. It is faster then 4.5.1 and just as stable.
MX so far has been a big headache. Hopefully there will be patches that
magically take care of things.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAI
Bob Denny is working on a connector that'll allow you to use WSP 3 and CFMX. I've been
testing it on and off for weeks now. It's rather nice and should be out soon. Till
then, I'm running on CF 5 and WSP 3. (I've been on WS since the beginning)
> HI,
> I am looking into upgrading to CF MX from
ftp://ftp1.deerfield.com/pub/current/CFWebSite.exe
At 12:26 PM 7/16/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>Bob Denny is working on a connector that'll allow you to use WSP 3 and
>CFMX. I've been testing it on and off for weeks now. It's rather nice and
>should be out soon. Till then, I'm running on CF 5 and W
Wow. I didn't know it was released already.
> ftp://ftp1.deerfield.com/pub/current/CFWebSite.exe
>
> At 12:26 PM 7/16/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> >Bob Denny is working on a connector that'll allow you to use WSP 3 and
> >CFMX. I've been testing it on and off for weeks now. It's rather nice and
>
:)
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
slouch in that area either.
- Original Message -
From: Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, April 29, 2002 2:35 pm
Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX)
> > I'll benchmark it now, and post my results (along with the
> code). I'd
> > be
> Anyone know what the impacts of CFMX being J2EE compliant
> will have on the code directory structure. I understand that
> the J2EE specification says some things about a directory
> structure for the WAR files, but how does this affect my
> cf pages. For instance, say I've come up with a st
DDE wrote:
> Looks like the usage of Lower() function in a query of query does not
> work as in standard SQL.
> Simple example: if you have a table containing names ( first_name
> middle_name and last_name) the following query of query :
>
>
> select * from myfirstquery where Lower(middle_
I believe qoq has a very limited set of functions available. To get around
that, I set the original query to also retrieve the name in lower case and
in my qoq, search on the lower case set field.
e.g
Select firstname, lower(firstname) as lower_first from mytable
Select firstname from qry1 w
Hi Jochem,
It is exactly what I meant, the Lower() causes the problem.
In my case, it's not easy to add an intermediate QoQ since my QoQ is
generated dynamically on a lot of criteria entered in a form by a user.
I guess I'll have to use Oracle vues instead of QoQ in the mean time ..
by the way
@;cfex.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 5:45 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CF MX Query of Query Lower() Function
I believe qoq has a very limited set of functions available. To get around
that, I set the original query to also retrieve the name in lower case and
in my qoq, search on the lower
D. Delcomminette wrote:
> by the way what does "the mean time" exactly means ??
It is a typo, it is supposed to be "meantime" :) Which in this case is
the time between submitting the bug to Macromedia, for which I posted
the link, and the time Macromedia fixes it.
Jochem
~
PROTECTED]
WWW : www.camdenfamily.com/morpheus
Yahoo IM : morpheus
"My ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda
> -Original Message-
> From: D. Delcomminette [mailto:dde@;ingecom.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 9:10 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject:
2002 6:20 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CF MX Query of Query Lower() Function
D. Delcomminette wrote:
> by the way what does "the mean time" exactly means ??
It is a typo, it is supposed to be "meantime" :) Which in this case is
the time between submitting the bug to Macrom
Raymond Camden wrote:
> CFMX Query of Query has an lcase function. You could use this to do a
> non-case sensitive type search. This function did not exist in CF5
> QofQ however.
LCase() throws an syntax error and is not in the docs [1], whereas
Lower() is and only throws a null exception when
>
> > CFMX Query of Query has an lcase function. You could use
> this to do a
> > non-case sensitive type search. This function did not exist in CF5
> > QofQ however.
>
> LCase() throws an syntax error and is not in the docs [1], whereas
> Lower() is and only throws a null exception when it ge
Raymond Camden wrote:
> It's what I get for posting before coffee. Yes, Lower() is right, not
> Lcase. So the issue is that it's not handling a null value in the
> column?
Yes. But I presume Dominique has already filled out the bug form.
Jochem
~~
Yes I did,
Dominique
-Original Message-
From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:jochemd@;oli.tudelft.nl]
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 8:12 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CF MX Query of Query Lower() Function
Raymond Camden wrote:
> It's what I get for posting before coffee. Yes, Lo
James Alexander wrote:
> I'm getting ready to upgrade a test machine from RC1 to RC2 and was
> curious if anyone know of the issue between CFMX and RC1 was resolved
to
> that I might finally be able to get MX on a 2K3 server.
I've had CFMX running on RC1 for over 6 months now... You just have to
t
Doh, I'd looked everyone for a work-around months ago and wasn't able to
find one. Do you know which key specifically that I need to edit?
- James
-Original Message-
From: Kay Smoljak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 6:30 PM
To: CF-Talk
James Alexander wrote:
>
Great! Thanks!
- James
-Original Message-
From: Kay Smoljak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 6:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: James Alexander
James Alexander wrote:
> Doh, I'd looked everyone for a work-around months ago and wasn't able
to
> find one. Do you kn
James Alexander wrote:
> Doh, I'd looked everyone for a work-around months ago and wasn't able
to
> find one. Do you know which key specifically that I need to edit?
OK, found the page: http://phydiux.com/cfmx_and_IIS6/
HTH,
Kay.
~~
Do you have virus scanning software on that server and active during
install? I've had installs barf on me because of that.
On Mon, 2004-02-23 at 15:25, Andrew Scott wrote:
> Hoping that someone might be able to shed some light on a problem I am
> having, have installed coldfusion a number of time
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 24 February 2004 10:31 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CF MX 6.1 install problem with installanywhere
Do you have virus scanning software on that server and active during
install? I've had installs barf on me because of that.
On Mon, 2004-02-23 at 15:25, Andrew
urne, Victoria, 3205
>
> Phone: 03 9686 0485 - Fax: 03 9699 7976
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Rob Rohan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, 24 February 2004 10:31 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: CF MX 6.1 install problem with installanywhere
>
>
>
Bank Street
South Melbourne, Victoria, 3205
Phone: 03 9686 0485 - Fax: 03 9699 7976
_
From: Rob Rohan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 24 February 2004 10:42 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CF MX 6.1 install problem with installanywhere
You can try this to get a clue (from zero
If you want to try a jdbc driver, we use the jtopen driver. We have
used it for several years. Download the jtopen.zip file, put the
jt400.jar file with the rest of your drivers - jrun/servers/lib I think.
You can dload it here https://sourceforge.net/projects/jt400
-Original Message-
F
> -Original Message-
> From: Smith, Daron [PA] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 9:46 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: CF MX 7 and DB2 connection timeout
>
> We recently moved our web site to a CF MX7 box. Ever since we
> occasionally get the following error "Error Execu
>> -Original Message-
>
>I'm a little confused why'd you'd be using the ODBC connection for this -
>isn't there a Native (type 4) driver available from IBM? The same driver
>available for WebSphere should work just fine with CF and you'll get a lot
>more support from IBM.
There is a gener
>We recently moved our web site to a CF MX7 box. Ever since we
>occasionally get the following error "Error Executing Database
>Query.[Macromedia][SequeLink JDBC Driver][ODBC Socket][IBM][iSeries
>Access ODBC Driver]Communication link failure. comm rc=10054 - CWBCO1047
>- The iSeries server applic
If one exists, you should use a JDBC driver for the DB2 database. We
have a JDBC driver for our AS400/DB2 and it has worked w/o any problems.
Also, who is to say that CF is at fault? I have seen the AS400/DB2
connection go down for many reasons, and they were never the fault of
CF. Chances are
Having both versions side by side is normal and by design. You need to
uninstall 6.1 if you no longer need it. The catch is you can only have one
on port 80 which could explain why IIS is getting killed.
-Original Message-
From: David Olimpio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday,
"CF-Talk"
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 12:11 PM
Subject: RE: CF MX 7 stopping IIS 5.0 service
> Having both versions side by side is normal and by design. You need to
> uninstall 6.1 if you no longer need it. The catch is you can only have
> one
> on port 80 which c
second one truly is.
-Original Message-
From: David Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 10:24 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CF MX 7 stopping IIS 5.0 service
Ok, how do you uninstall cfmx 6.1 without removing your cfide folders in
your root web?
The last time
removing the data sources?
- Original Message -
From: "Connie DeCinko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk"
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 12:38 PM
Subject: RE: CF MX 7 stopping IIS 5.0 service
> Hmm, I would assume it would be smart enough to leave those alone.
a Server Development
-Original Message-
From: David Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 1:06 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CF MX 7 stopping IIS 5.0 service
I have never called in to Macromedia for support and I have used their
products since CF 3.x. We currently own
> I am running CF MX developer edition on my laptop. The
> problem I have is that when I try to start CF without a
> network connection, CF will not start.
>
> Not a problem at home, but when I am on a plane, or a hotel,
> hard to do some work... ;-)
>
> Any way I can get CF MX to run without
>I am running CF MX developer edition on my laptop. The problem I have is
> that when I try to start CF without a network connection, CF will not
> start.
>
> Not a problem at home, but when I am on a plane, or a hotel, hard to do
> some work... ;-)
>
> Any way I can get CF MX to run without a ne
Windows 2003 server under IIS 6.0. Running it as a service.
At 12:03 PM 12/1/2004, you wrote:
> >I am running CF MX developer edition on my laptop. The problem I have is
> > that when I try to start CF without a network connection, CF will not
> > start.
> >
> > Not a problem at home, but when I
I am going to try the loop back adapter. That sounds like it may work.
Thanks
Jacob
At 12:10 PM 12/1/2004, you wrote:
> > I am running CF MX developer edition on my laptop. The
> > problem I have is that when I try to start CF without a
> > network connection, CF will not start.
> >
> > Not a p
I run CFMX that way w/o a network connection on my laptop. Not sure
that helps, but I wanted to state that it can be done.
Perhaps your config has CFMX looking for something on a remote computer?
-Original Message-
From: Jacob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 200
I have to say I'm running XP, not server.
-Original Message-
From: Jacob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 2:33 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CF MX developer edition with no network connection.
Windows 2003 server under IIS 6.0. Running it as a service.
Yeah, that one threw me too...2k server on a laptop? That's pretty awesome.
>I have to say I'm running XP, not server.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jacob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Windows 2003 server under IIS 6.0. Running it as a service.
~~~
> Yeah, that one threw me too...2k server on a laptop? That's
> pretty awesome.
Lots of developers run server OSs on their laptops. Up until last month, I
ran Windows Server 2003 on my laptop. Before that, it was Windows 2000
Server. If you have an MSDN subscription, it's a good way to familiariz
Unchecking the 'Maintain Database Connnections' check box seems to have fixed
the problem. Our AS/400 was unavailable for a significant time this w/e for an
offline backup. In the past this would have definitely killed the datasource.
But Monday morning everything was OK.
>We recently moved
You only had to go back one day in the archives.
http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/knowledgebase/index.cfm?id=tn_18289
--Ferg
Jim Curran wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Is there any way to get CF to process .php files? I have a site we acquired
>that has a flash form submitting to a PHP file. Also, ther
I saw that, but didn't realize it addressed this issue... Thought it was DBM
specific.
THNX.
- j
-Original Message-
From: Ken Ferguson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 3:42 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CF MX 7 processing .PHP extension - IIS 6
You onl
If you mean can you write CFML code, save the file as .php, and have CF
execute it, then yes you can. If you mean can the CF server read and process
PHP code written in files with a .php extension, then the answer is of
course not.
On 11/23/05, Jim Curran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
bject: Re: CF MX 7 processing .PHP extension - IIS 6
If you mean can you write CFML code, save the file as .php, and have CF
execute it, then yes you can. If you mean can the CF server read and process
PHP code written in files with a .php extension, then the answer is of
course not.
On 11/23/05
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 23 November 2005 22:51
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CF MX 7 processing .PHP extension - IIS 6
If it's just one file, I recommend rewriting it in CF... Otherwise your only
choice is to get another server and put PHP on it... (or shared space
somewhere)..
-Original Me
Matthew Smith wrote:
> that offers CF MX or CF 8 with MSSQL server for around $16.95/month? We
> don't need a huge amount or space or transfer.
cfdynamics.
~|
Download the latest ColdFusion 8 utilities including Report Builder,
Actually, you can still get CFMX with MSSQL for 26.95 at CrystalTech, and as
they offer a discount to not-for-profits, you may be back down close to the
16.95 you seek. Drop a line to their sales to see what the not-for-profit
discount would do for you.
HTH,
James
On 8/14/07, Matthew Smith <[EMA
Excuse me, I meant CF8 with MSSQL.
On 8/14/07, James Edmunds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Actually, you can still get CFMX with MSSQL for 26.95 at CrystalTech, and
> as they offer a discount to not-for-profits, you may be back down close to
> the 16.95 you seek. Drop a line to their sales to see
On 2/9/07, dsmith @ psea. org dsmith @ psea. org <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is it possible to create an access datasource on 6.1 w/o having the ODBC
> service running? There appears to be an access native driver but when I try
> to use it it tells me that the ODBC service isn't running.
>
> Tha
I don't know if this is it but have you checked if Coldfusion MX 7 ODBC Server
is running
In windows:
Start > Programmes > Administrative Tools > Services
~|
Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7
Experience Flex 2 & MX7 integration &
Once upon a time, I seem to remember hearing that you could use OLEDB to
connect to access:
However, I've never tried that :). If it works out, let me know.
~|
Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7
Experience Flex 2 & MX7 integra
> Once upon a time, I seem to remember hearing that you could
> use OLEDB to connect to access:
>
>
> However, I've never tried that :). If it works out, let me know.
OLEDB is not supported in CFMX or newer versions.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
Fig Leaf Softwa
> Is it possible to create an access datasource on 6.1 w/o
> having the ODBC service running? There appears to be an
> access native driver but when I try to use it it tells me
> that the ODBC service isn't running.
Are you using the Access w/Unicode driver? That doesn't rely on the ODBC
servi
1. I happen to be one of those Website pro users and there are a lot more than three
of us. Maybe even 5. :)
2. If you don't mind, I'd like to forward this to Bob Denny, who is working on the
issue. If its an easy fix than I'd be exceptionally happy and I'm sure that many
others will be as well
> 1. I happen to be one of those Website pro users and there
> are a lot more than three of us. Maybe even 5. :)
I used to be one of them, but just can't justify the per-server cost any
more. Oh, well.
> 2. If you don't mind, I'd like to forward this to Bob Denny,
> who is working on the issue
"Webapper - Making the NET work"
-Original Message-
From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 2:20 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CF MX works on WebSite Pro (was: RE: Ridiculous Problem!)
1. I happen to be one of those Website pro users and there
> With all the woes that IIS has suffered (and also being a
> sentimental old bugger) it would be great for me to see
> Website Pro re emerge as a contender in the Webserver stakes.
All we need now are the grumbles from the Website Orphans list to be
sorted
Philip Arnold
Technical Director
Cert
On 6/5/02, Michael Dinowitz penned:
> >I don't think Bud is running CF MX:
>>
>>"OK. I've got CF 4.51 on my development box. I also run WebSite
>>Pro on the dev box, which I just upgraded to the latest version,
>>which I'd also done on the real server with no problem."
>>
> > From this, I assume
On 6/5/02, Dave Watts penned:
> > 1. I happen to be one of those Website pro users and there
>> are a lot more than three of us. Maybe even 5. :)
>
>I used to be one of them, but just can't justify the per-server cost any
>more. Oh, well.
The price is down to 300 bucks for a single server (comp
Hi Dave,
> > 1. I happen to be one of those Website pro users and there
> > are a lot more than three of us. Maybe even 5. :)
>
>I used to be one of them, but just can't justify the per-server cost any
>more. Oh, well.
Have you thought of a site license? Very cheap for a hosting house or
simila
> Have you thought of a site license? Very cheap for a hosting
> house or similar with a reasonable number of machines.
>
> We hated moving away from Website to do clustering since it
> was the way we got into CF in the first place and its a much
> better server that IIS.
We're not a hosting
> The price is down to 300 bucks for a single server (compared
> to about 900 when I originally purchased WS Pro 2). It's even
> more affordable if you're running 3 or more servers. Anything's
> better than the IIS security patch circus IMHO.
The thing is, if you install IIS correctly, and dis
> We're not a hosting house, and from my perspective, free beats cheap. The
> thing is, WebSite doesn't really offer any features that IIS doesn't, and I
> don't think it's any better than IIS, really. IIS has to be set up
> correctly, but that's pretty trivial to do. In that sense, I'm a satisfie
David, ignore previous email... you answered it here. =)
On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Dave Watts wrote:
> > The price is down to 300 bucks for a single server (compared
> > to about 900 when I originally purchased WS Pro 2). It's even
> > more affordable if you're running 3 or more servers. Anything's
>>| From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>|
>>|
>>| The thing is, if you install IIS correctly, and disable the
>>| stuff that you don't use, it's not a "security patch
>>| circus". By default, IIS includes a lot of features that
>>| WebSite doesn't have, and that most people don't us
> > We're not a hosting house, and from my perspective, free
> > beats cheap. The thing is, WebSite doesn't really offer
> > any features that IIS doesn't, and I don't think it's any
> > better than IIS, really. IIS has to be set up correctly,
> > but that's pretty trivial to do. In that sense
> > We're not a hosting house, and from my perspective, free beats cheap.
>The
> > thing is, WebSite doesn't really offer any features that IIS doesn't,
>and I
> > don't think it's any better than IIS, really. IIS has to be set up
> > correctly, but that's pretty trivial to do. In that sense, I'
"However, to address your point, the belief that you have to apply
patches every other day is incorrect"
Not really a belief to be honest, I was being a little sarcastic in the
realm of the evergoing IIS (Is it Secure?) joke. I have worked with IIS
before and yes, I agree with all that you've
Saying this, we have a client who used to use IIS - they thought they
had all of the back-doors bolted... Then one of the Code Red variants
came along and strolled straight through - they now use WSP
> Here are some things that IIS allows you to do:
>
> - handle server-side includes (I use CFINCL
sage-
From: Erika L Walker-Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 8:33 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CF MX works on WebSite Pro (was: RE: Ridiculous Problem!)
I have to be a Dave groupie, and agree ... In the past several years
we've used IIS, we've never (go
> "However, to address your point, the belief that you have to
> apply patches every other day is incorrect"
>
> Not really a belief to be honest, I was being a little
> sarcastic in the realm of the evergoing IIS (Is it Secure?)
> joke.
I don't think you're picking a fight, as you're raising
> Saying this, we have a client who used to use IIS - they
> thought they had all of the back-doors bolted... Then one
> of the Code Red variants came along and strolled straight
> through - they now use WSP
Well, I'm glad they're not using IIS then. However, this is an illustration
of their i
services settings and feature install - so you can check it when you install
the latest service pack or version of software.
Mark
-Original Message-
From: Dave Carabetta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 8:48 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CF MX works on WebSite Pro (was
>
>and it worked fine. So, WebSite Pro users (all three of you) rejoice!
Hey this is really awesome news, thanks Dave! I think there are a few of us on here
still :) Heck, cf-talk was born on website-talk even, way back when (a bit of
history for all the "latecomers" in the audience ;-)
Th
> I'm just curious (since this thread is still active), is a
> product like Apache or other non-IIS products *proven* to
> be more secure, assuming you disable the IIS features you
> don't need and apply the appropriate patches? That's not a
> rhetorical question, I'm really asking for people'
> Well, I'm glad they're not using IIS then. However, this is
> an illustration of their inability to configure a server
> correctly, rather than an illustration of some special
> problem with IIS. I mean, this stuff is just not that hard.
> We're talking about ten minutes of initial configuration
> My biggest issue is that script kiddies attack is BECAUSE
> it's Microsoft - I'm not willing to take that risk
If you've configured it properly, what risk are you taking? URLScan will
even let you hide the IIS server banner, so no one'll know you're using it.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Softwar
Designs, Inc.
http://mysecretbase.com
-Original Message-
From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 6:40 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CF MX works on WebSite Pro (was: RE: Ridiculous Problem!)
> > We're not a hosting house, and from my perspe
I'd pay money for that :)
Me and at least one other person here at my company would 'attend'.
-Original Message-
From: Matt Robertson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 11:19 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CF MX works on WebSite Pro (was: RE: Rid
> You used to (or maybe still do?) offer a course on server/IIS
> security.
Yes, we still offer that course. In fact, I taught it this Monday. We're in
the process of revising the course to cover CF MX specifically, as well as
some other new things that are interesting and useful. More informati
> > We're not a hosting house, and from my perspective, free beats cheap.
>The
> > thing is, WebSite doesn't really offer any features that IIS doesn't,
>and I
> > don't think it's any better than IIS, really. IIS has to be set up
> > correctly, but that's pretty trivial to do. In that sense, I'
Not knowing what your query is doing and also not knowing what the original
query result set is and its properties makes this a difficult question to
answer. Both of the links you provided seem to generate on html output so I
can't see any debug info but what I will say is that they both took aroun
The second link for me did take a noticeably longer time to load than
the first. The first kind of came up almost immediately.
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 03:12:12 -, Paul Vernon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not knowing what your query is doing and also not knowing what the original
> query result se
> The second link for me did take a noticeably longer time to load than the
first. The first kind of came up almost immediately.
Strange, I tested 2 or 3 times and it was about the same... I test now and
there is a marked difference My comments however still stand. Without
knowing how big the
I agree that it is hard to answer the question, just wanted to point
out that I was noticing the differences in speed.
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 03:31:09 -, Paul Vernon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The second link for me did take a noticeably longer time to load than the
> first. The first kind o
Try the 2 links again.
I had forgotten that cfttrace doesn't work unless you have debug priveledges.
Ive populated the execution times for the qoqs during runtime and used
cfflush to spit them out in realtime
Here is the app running on 6.1 (same server)
http://eureka.ext.usu.edu/spider.cfm?q=61&
Those times look like overheads to me... Out of interest, how big is your
original dataset? Do these times differ significantly if the size of the
result set changes? How wide is the result set and how many rows does it
have in general?
The next thing to ask is Is there a good solid reason wh
LOL, i found out what it was.
You can specify 'columntypelist' in the queryNew function. Its
optional, but not specifying any data type put a significant increase
in load time.
Insteresting.good to know.
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 21:21:33 -0700, Jay McEntire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Try the
That sounds like a new "best practice" - always specify a columntypelist for
CF7 queryNew() calls.
-Original Message-
From: Jay McEntire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 8 February 2005 12:30
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CF MX Performance Hit -- Amy I the first to notice
Message-
>From: Jay McEntire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, 8 February 2005 12:30
>To: CF-Talk
>Subject: Re: CF MX Performance Hit -- Amy I the first to notice? QoQ
>
>LOL, i found out what it was.
>
>You can specify 'columntypelist' in the queryNe
Craig Benner wrote:
> Here is a little back ground before I get into my problem. I have 3
> production web servers. 2 of them are running CF 5 which is load
> balanced. They are using client variables to keep state and login
> information. This is working perfectly. Next I am adding a standalo
: Re: CF MX and CF 5 accessing the same client database storage
for one big application.
Craig Benner wrote:
> Here is a little back ground before I get into my problem. I have 3
> production web servers. 2 of them are running CF 5 which is load
> balanced. They are using client var
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:17:21 -0500, Craig Benner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So to use 2 cfclientdb, I will have to write my code to keep the data up
> to date as the jump back and forth between the servers / cfclientdbs.
>
> Sounds like a pain.
Just use two databases on the same database serve
have to know
about the data in the other.
:-\
-Original Message-
From: Steven Erat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 11:41 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CF MX and CF 5 accessing the same client database storage
for one big application.
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:17:21
301 - 400 of 401 matches
Mail list logo
