well said.
I agree

Steve
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Vernon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Server" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 6:22 PM
Subject: RE: Linux vs Windows for CF Server?


> > I have to agree. CF5 on Windows was and is far more stable than CF7
>
> Having run what was several huge sites on CF 4.5, 5 MX 6 and 6.1 all on
> Windows 2000 and 2003 all on IIS, I have no idea why you would think
that...
> were looking at running MX 7 at the moment
>
> In my last employ, we were running 4 CF Servers in a load balanced array
on
> CF 5 and they were hell. Forever falling over crashing and requiring a
> reboot. We eventually moved to CFMX 6.0 and that too was a pig but since
we
> updated to 6.1 we experienced few if at all any problems.... When I left,
> the clustered SQL server setup has an uptime approaching 600 days per
server
> on W2k and our webservers were approaching 200 days uptime each. For me,
I'd
> say that those sorts of uptimes are more than acceptible in a production
> environment.
>
> My experience with the stability of a Windows server has led me to believe
> that it is generally down to the competence of the admin and their
approach
> to solving issues that may arise. As my competency and knowledge of
Windows
> rose, so did my uptimes it is that simple.
>
> Making a Windows box stable involves knowing that an NT technology based
box
> can in effect be running upto 5 operating systems in and of itself (NTVDM,
> Posix, Win32, OS2 and good old 16-bit WOW) and knowing how to turn these
off
> leaving just the ones that you need (Win32). Also turning off all
> unnecessary services goes a very long way to stabilising a server as does
> hardening and optimising the TCP/IP stack.
>
> Windows gets a bad name because it is open out of the box... Being open
> isn't that big an offence really. Unleashing the open box onto the
Internet
> is....
>
> When you are approaching CFMX running on Windows then a good knowledge of
> different JVM architectures and how to tweak them for best effect is
useful.
> I've tested running CF on several vendors JVMs and benchmarked them all
> under simulated heavy load to ensure that we are getting the best out of
the
> technilogy that we can.
>
> To sum up, Windows isn't any more or less stable than any other OS if it
is
> configured and managed correctly and just because it has a nice easy GUI
> doesn't mean that it is nice and easy to get it right in fact most of the
> devil in configuring a Windows box is at the command line and in the
> registry editor... After that, the GUI is a nice to have :)
>
> Paul
>
>
> 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Stay Ahead of Hackers - Download ZoneAlarm Pro
http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=65

Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:10:5320
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=11502.10531.10
Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54

Reply via email to