Seconded. Ralio enterprise wide is where it's at..
http://twitter.com/#!/pud/status/1788251045 On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Larry C. Lyons <[email protected]> wrote: > > I have to disagree with you about the licensing issue. Both Railo and > Open BlueDragon are enterprise ready application servers, as capable > as Adobe CF. Since you can download them as WAR files, its not > difficult to deploy them to multiple JBoss or Tomcat servers and > clusters. > > While the community server edition of PHP is free, the enterprise Zend > Server's cost is more akin to Adobe CF Enterprise edition. Given the > performance costs of the community server under load, you need the > Zend Server for any large scale site or one where you expect to have a > significant load. > > On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Cameron Childress <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 9:53 PM, PT <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I was wondering how much use CF can really handle either as a server >>> product or middleware. I am not talking about situations where throwing >>> hardware at performance issues can get one by, but to the point where >>> choosing the right middleware/application backend software can make or >>> break an application. >> >> >> Technically speaking, CF can scale very well. Virtually (or maybe >> literally) no-one has the scale problems of Fabebook, so I would call foul >> on the premise of this entire question. Many clients come to me claiming >> they expect this sort of traffic, but 99.99% of them are completely full of >> shit. One wasn't, though they still didn't even come close to Facebook on >> scale. >> >> Having said that, I think that the two number one problems with scaling up >> CF to "Facebook scale". >> >> First - cost. Justin already mentioned this, and it's a very valid point. >> Scaling means lots of servers, no matter how bad-ass your platform is. If >> the world of PHP, there are certainly lots of costs of scaling out to a >> bunch of servers, but the license for the PHP isn't one of them. In the CF >> world you pay for each. Even using VMs alongside the most cost effective CF >> licensing model, you're going to pay out the ass. >> >> I have no idea how many servers Facebook runs today, but in 2009 this >> article<http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/10/13/facebook-now-has-30000-servers/> >> claims >> that they run 30k servers (surely way more by now). Assuming only a third >> of those are PHP servers, that 10K servers. Even at 10 VMs per Enterprise >> license, at full retain price you're talking about $7.4 million dollars >> in licensing. Of course, Adobe might give you a steep discount, which >> would take the price down lower, but even at $1 million, would you pay that >> when PHP is free? >> >> Really though, CF doesn't live in the Silicon Valley startup space. Sure, >> startups use CF sometimes, but really CF lives in the corporate world, and >> in government. It's rare to see anything similar to FB built in CF. Pud ( >> http://pud.com/) has built a few things with it, including FuckedCompany, >> TinyLetter, and Fandalism, but that's the exception. >> >> The second problem I see getting to Facebook scale is the fact that CF is >> closed source. Sure, CF scales well, but occasionally it doesn't. For >> example, CF8 had a huge problem with UUID generation that slows servers >> down tremendously. In an open source software environment that would get >> patched by the startup's engineers, even if it didn't make it back into the >> product (though it probably would make it back in). In the world of CF, >> however, we all had to wait till CF9 came out to see the fix. Sure, in the >> meantime we could all code around it, or just not use UUIDs - but why do >> that when you could fix it yourself? >> >> Aside from those two issues, I think that CF scales very well. That one >> client I was talking about that wasn't full of shit about it's scale? When >> Sumo Consulting helped relaunch PGA.com in 2003, it ran on 2 (TWO!!!!) >> CF6.0 servers and managed to scale up to over 10 million pageviews/hour. We >> made lots of technical decisions that helped achieve this, including >> liberal use of caching servers, image farms, etc, but we did it, and this >> was on a relatively weak V6.0 release of CF as well... >> >> Admittedly though, PGA.com still isn't the same problem as Facebook because >> it has lots of generalized, non-individualized content. If we cached the >> leaderboard for 10 seconds that represented thousands of cache hits. That >> made things easy. Facebook shows different stuff to each person so the >> cache chunks are much smaller. That makes things harder. >> >> Having said all of the above, I really do think that Railo solves both of >> these problems. you can choose to license it for support. or not. you can >> also get into the source and patch anything you need to in order to speed >> it up. I don't know how this will all shake out, but Pud (my Silicon Valley >> example) has switched from CF to Railo, for the very reasons I stated above. >> >> So - yes it can scale, but as with any question "it depends". >> >> -Cameron >> >> -- >> Cameron Childress >> -- >> p: 678.637.5072 >> im: cameroncf >> facebook <http://www.facebook.com/cameroncf> | >> twitter<http://twitter.com/cameronc> | >> google+ <https://profiles.google.com/u/0/117829379451708140985> >> >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:350436 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
