I agree that 1-2% is probably about right. There are far
more people out there that just don't have the need (or the
money!) for guaranteed super 100% uptime. If it goes down,
say, once every 4-5 months... Well, that's not the end of
the world, and there are a lot better things you can spend
the money on.
I'll also bet that the percentage of people running
clusters is higher if you limit yourself to this list. The
list attracts the more CF-dedicated people, so you're gonna
find more of them here!
Norman
Quoting Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I guess we are in that 1%
>
> Steve
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ben Forta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "CF-Server" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 2:28 PM
> Subject: RE: Using CFAPP and inactive
> interfaces...
>
>
> > Chris,
> >
> > That number seems to be accurate. When you take
> into account that most CF
> > development is in house, Intranets and stuff, many
> of those are single
> > boxes.
> >
> > --- Ben
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gilbert, Chris
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 11:56 AM
> > To: CF-Server
> > Subject: RE: Using CFAPP and inactive
> interfaces...
> >
> >
> > Andrew, I think its a matter of perspective. For
> example, we've gradually
> > moved from Session to Client stored in the
> database because we went to a
> > multi-server environment and finally to
> cookie-based Client storage
> because
> > of performance accessing the database. As our load
> increased and we scaled
> > up, we had to be willing to get by with less and
> less built in
> > functionality. Thats all there is to it. Now I
> have to serialize any
> > structures with WDDX, store them in a cookie and
> be aware of all the
> issues
> > that come with cookies (limited storage space,
> can't write a cookie on a
> > page that uses CFLOCATION, etc.). In fact we've
> had to abandon built in
> > Client scope cookies altogether because we needed
> to use some JavaScript
> to
> > help us get around a CFLOCATION problem.
> >
> > Basically, if I could get away with using SESSION
> scoped structures, I
> would
> > do so in a minute. But because of the size, scale,
> and distribution of our
> > apps we need to custom write almost all of the
> functionality. While I
> would
> > never go back--I like the control--I can certainly
> understand why most
> > developers, and probably all beginning CF coders,
> would want to stick with
> > Session variables.
> >
> > -Chris Gilbert, Fodors.com
> >
> > OBTW, Ben is that 1% figure you quoted really
> accurate?!? We're running on
> 4
> > Solaris boxes and I never would have guessed that
> a multi-server
> environment
> > would amount to only 1% of the installations. I
> guess there must be a lot
> of
> > small department and intranet applications padding
> the 99% because just
> from
> > a reliability and redundancy point of view, I
> can't imagine relying on
> just
> > one box.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andrew Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 10:23 AM
> > To: CF-Server
> > Subject: RE: Using CFAPP and inactive
> interfaces...
> >
> >
> > And I would guess that this is all situated on one
> server, now what will
> > happen when this load gets too much and you need
> to add an extra server.
> > Using session variables means you need to then be
> tied to high end load
> > balancing, or stick session scenarios.
> >
> > Using the client scope instead makes it easier for
> not only the scaling
> > of the servers, but means you don't need to
> revisit the code and rewrite
> > this code.
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Herman Cremer
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 25 July 2001 11:51 PM
> > > To: CF-Server
> > > Subject: RE: Using CFAPP and inactive
> interfaces...
> > >
> > > I have developed a whole stack of stuff
> > > using session variables.
> > >
> > > Like an online accounting system with
> > > 100+ users at a time, bashing away 12 hours a
> day.
> > >
> > > Never had a single problem.
> > >
> > > As far as I'm concerned....session vars works
> > > very good.
> > >
> > >
> > > Herman
> >
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
