'High Impact' is relational to the server response time, you must find your
own definition based on what your applications can handle. Most of mine can
handle a lot, because I write them that way. Sometimes clients put there
code on my machine, and I have to optimize it so it doesn't bog down my
server. 'High Impact' may mean 200 users for a badly written or designed
application (or just a really tough one:)). I guess I should specify that
when I started doing the work for a small company and they could only afford
one server, I made sure it was a duel processor with 512MB's of memory.
Either you said the last sentence wrong, or it's just the total opposite
everywhere that I've worked.
Yes, with 2 CPU's, you are much more scalable. However, I wouldn't suggest
limiting SQL servers CPU usage since CF and SQL servers CPU usage most
likely will occur at separate times. CF passes info to SQL server and the
CF thread waits for SQL to finish, in that time, 1 thread is allocated to
wait, so CF is not using the CPU at that time, and when SQL server is done,
it sends the info back to CF where it will then need the CPU to parse and
display. SQL Server and CF both have maximum allowed threads that will lock
them down. If you force SQL to only use 1 CPU reindexing will take twice as
long, a routine usually only run when CF is not busy (2:15 AM on my
servers).
SQL server requires much more CPU usage that CF in most applications that I
write, I depend on SQL to do complex calculations, and use CF for results
and as a true hosting language.
Disclaimer: This is for my applications and for how I write my
applications. If you write more CPU intensive CF, then this answer may not
be for you.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Woods [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 10:57 AM
To: CF-Server
Subject: RE: Hmmmm?
At 10:01 AM 2/27/2001 -0600, you wrote:
> By default this is not a good idea. However, you can limit the
> amount of
>memory SQL server can allocate. Once this is done, they can coexist on a
>box peacefully. However, if you have a high impact site, you must move SQL
>to it's own box, or you will bottleneck because of SQL and CF both fighting
>over cycles.
What would you consider 'high impact'? For sites which are running on a
single server and need to scale upwards as cheaply as possible, I would
have thought the logical next step would be to move to a multi-processor
machine with buckets of fast RAM, configure SQL Server to have dedicated
access to one or more of the processors and limit the amount of memory
available that SQL Server can hog. These days, getting money out of a
financial manager is easier than drawing blood from a stone.
Mark
>It does work, but not recommended if you can afford it.
> The MDAC response by Stephen Moretti is also a good idea to check.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kola Oyedeji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 9:06 AM
>To: CF-Server
>Subject: RE: Hmmmm?
>
>
>Can i just ask is it recommended then not to have coldfusion and sql server
>on the same production box?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jacob Cameron [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: 27 February 2001 14:36
>To: CF-Server
>Subject: RE: Hmmmm?
>
>
> Sorry, that has not been my experience. There is no memory leak
> in CF that
>I have found, just as there is no memory leak in ASP. However, in CF and
>ASP code can be written that does not release memory. In ASP, this is
easy,
>in CF it's a little harder. I have ran an NT - CF Server getting over 1
>million hits a day for over 6 months without a reboot (nstorm.com). The
>only reason I had to reboot was my company got bought and we switched
>buildings. If your code is solid, there is no memory leak in CF 4.01 I
know
>for sure. Currently all the sites I'm in charge of use cf 4.51 and they do
>not show signs of memory leaks. I'd suggest having the code looked at by a
>Senior developer in CF. They will be able to find the problem for you.
> TIPS: Don't store large amounts of information in application or
> session
>variable
> Check for endless loops.
> Don't run large scheduled tasks on your production box.
> Lower session time.
>
>======================================
>Jacob Cameron
>Director of Information Technologies
>MultiMark Communications
>1801 Laws St.
>Dallas, TX 75202
>
>Tel: 214-871-9117 x104
>Fax: 214-303-0698
>
>E: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>W: http://www.multimark.com/
>======================================
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ralph Stark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 2:07 PM
>To: CF-Server
>Subject: Re: Hmmmm?
>
>
>Yes you are correct. There is a memory leak with Cold Fusion. We currently
>run our server with 4GB of ram on each and have not had "many" problems. I
>have spoken with a couple of people at Albany CF Users group and found that
>they do not suggest running a production CF Server with less than 512MB of
>ram. Event then I would keep an eye on the memory usage. As it was
explained
>to me the server is grabbing memory to use when it access your queries.
Then
>the server holds on to this memory in the event you may need it again. Some
>helpful things I have been told are;
>
>1) Make sure your databases are not on the CF server.
>2) Scheduled reboots.
>3) Structures such as cfloops eat up memory fast.
>4) Make sure no session variables are just hanging out on the server.
>
>These few thing have made the memory leak less of an issue, but it still
>becomes a problem every once and a while.
>
>Hope this helps you out.
>
>
>
>
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To: CF-Server <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Hmmmm?
> >Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:59:25 -0700
> >
> >I was wondering if anybody could offer any suggestions. We have 2
servers
> >running cold fusion server 4.5.2, and one server running 4.0. When I
check
> >the memory usage of the 4.0 machine it is somewhere around 4MB, when I
> >check
> >the 4.5.2 machines it is upwards of 16MB, and always increasing. The 4.0
> >machine has been up longer, but probably only gets about 40-50% of the
hits
> >of the 4.5.2 servers. I was wondering if this looked normal to people.
> >The
> >one machine was rebooted after an upgrade about a week ago, and it's
memory
> >usage has increased about 100% in that week. I am pretty new to CF
Server,
> >and have an NT background, and this looks like a memory leak to me, with
CF
> >Server not letting go of memory it takes.
> >Any thoughts anybody?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Thomas.
> >
> >
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
'unsubscribe' in the body or visit the list page at www.houseoffusion.com
