Don't confuse CF as a "server. Unlike CF5, MX is an application not a server - it is entirely bound by Java - and from the args in the JVM it was not using both processors for GC - you can verify that by a VisualGC.
-----Original Message----- From: bill foresman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 March 2005 14:51 To: CF-Server Subject: Re: memory use and CF Sorry, I always made the assumption (I know, I know) that CF would use whatever processors are in the box? Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX) wrote: >All of this really stems on how your application interacts with Java/JVM. >There is no really technotes from Macromedia or otherwise which will provide >you with a best fit setting. Whatever else has been said ConcMarkSweep will >give you worse performance than a Parallel GC - for sure. However f you are >not sure, then simply remove any setting of the GC type and the JVM will >take / use Parallel - if you have multiple CPU's you need to use them ;-) > >What metrics have you ran before to give you memory consumption? (DO NOT >rely on Task manager!) > >In Task manager ensure that you have the VM column visible, What you are >probably seeing is timedout requests or queued requests being buffered into >the system. Do you have a lot of Connection Reset by Peer's in the runtime >logs? If you do, then CF is backlogging processing of the requests which >will consume memory. > >I would certainly update your JVM as the GC in later versions is greatly >improved. > >Thanks > >Neil > >-----Original Message----- >From: Douglas Knudsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: 01 March 2005 14:04 >To: CF-Server >Subject: Re: memory use and CF > >thanks for the reply Neil, very helpful. Info out there on this is >scarce. I'm going to reply inline below. > > >On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 10:03:52 -0000, Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX) ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>OK, >> >>Sorry I was delayed, damn timezones! OK, it looks as though you have a >>fairly beefy machine...A few things you can do here (and these are never >>documents by MM as they are no doubt out of scope of CF!) >> >>I would remove the -XX:+UseConcMarkSweepGC from your arguments and replace >>it with -XX:+UseParallelGC. If you have a 4 processor box then you going >> >> >to > > >>suffer some performance problems with a ConcMarkSweep. >> >> > >This is interesting, Robi Sen's blog mentions the opposite and I think >B Purcell's does too >http://www.robisen.com/index.cf This e-mail is from Reed Exhibitions (Oriel House, 26 The Quadrant, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 1DL, United Kingdom), a division of Reed Business, Registered in England, Number 678540. It contains information which is confidential and may also be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s) please note that any form of distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error please return it to the sender or call our switchboard on +44 (0) 20 89107910. The opinions expressed within this communication are not necessarily those expressed by Reed Exhibitions. Visit our website at http://www.reedexpo.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:10:5197 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/10 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:10 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.10 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
