Yeah... I have to wonder at 200,000 simultaneous single users on a single server, regardless of the application server, let alone the framework. If you have that high a load, I'd be looking at a clustered solution right off the bat.
Would anyone disagree with me? Mark On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 7:29 AM, Peter Bell <[email protected]> wrote: > I haven't done any load testing on ColdFusion or Transfer with anywhere near > that number of users, but as Brian said I'd do a really quick spike and some > load testing before you go too far with this. Mark, shoot me down if I'm > wrong, but I wouldn't call that number of simultaneous users a typical use > case for Transfer (or even for a ColdFusion app). If you're really gonna > have that kind of load out of the gate, you might find the speed of > development benefits of CF are outweighed by the performance benefits of > (say) a java based app. Also I'd be looking seriously at clustering > strategies (I don't know how easy/possible it is to cluster with Transfer) > as I'm not sure if you'd want 200,000 logged in users running on a single > machine (assuming they interact with the server with some frequency). > Best Wishes, > Peter > > On Mar 13, 2009, at 4:17 PM, Brian Kotek wrote: > > If any individual User only has a few attributes, then a oneToMany is fine. > If a User had 5,000 attributes, it would not be fine. > > 200,000 instances is a lot, but "a lot" depends on your hardware, RAM, heap > size, etc. With 200,000 simultaneous connections, I'm assuming this is a > monster server. So it will probably be ok. Before you go too far I'd just > run a load test and see how it works. > > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 11:46 AM, John Whish <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Hi Brian, I might be going down completely the wrong path with this. >> I'm expecting 200,000 users logged in at once. The idea is to "encapsulate >> what changes" and stick all user attributes that aren't common to all users >> into another class. Users will probably only have 3-4 specific attributes >> (although as the system grows it will no doubt be added to). >> As I understand it, 200,000 x 4 is a lot of objects to store in the >> transfer cache so it will be constantly instantiating those objects. >> Originally I was using the proxy before I decided to try storing a struct >> directly in the User object. >> As I get the user object when they log in I don't see how I could use >> a manyToOne in this scenario. >> >> I got the idea from the heads up OOA&D guitar store example, if that >> helps. >> >> > > > > > > > > > -- E: [email protected] W: www.compoundtheory.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Before posting questions to the group please read: http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transfer-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
