I do agree that techniques for optimizing CF need to be reevaluated in light of CFMX. I know I have been spending some time figuring out new ways of doing things as I am sure others are. At this point though, there really isn't anything published that can help you. Then again, the stuff that was published in the past on optimizing CF wasn't that good to begin with.
Matt Liotta President & CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.montarasoftware.com/ V: 415-577-8070 F: 415-341-8906 P: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Hubner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 1:55 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: It's official: CFMX is 10% faster than CF5 > > Ok, Ok, I need to refrase my self: > > I disagree with the statment that CFMX is 10% faster than CF5, not whit > the tests itself. > > I've heard that CFMX outperforms CF5 in terms of scalability (not > necessary performance), but... It's really hard to know if the rules of > CF5 "good coding" and settings (such as the ones you find in TechNotes, > Articles and books (Optimizing ColdFusion 5 and so on)) are now also > valid to CFMX... Maybe a "CF5" code and server tunning is not suitable > for CFMX in terms of performance, maybe yes... Not sure, who is? I've > experiencing a lack of more professional and non-MM resources such as > articles, etc.. (God saves CF-Talk!)... :o) Using one tag instead of one > will be faster? (eg. using CFLOOP QUERY instead of CFOUTPUT)?? The > security issues (when specific to the CFServer) will be the sames?? I'm > with the feeling that I need to re-learn ColdFusion... Ah, and also wait > for the JIT... :o) > > Damn. Sorry, but I'm blue today... :o) > > []'s > Alex > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Hubner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 25/07/2002 5:32 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: It's official: CFMX is 10% faster than CF5 > > > CFMX Performance Brief: CFMX is "only" 10% faster than CF5 under Win2k > boxes: > http://www.macromedia.com/software/coldfusion/whitepapers/pdf/cfmx_perfo > rmance_brief.pdf > > Well, almost everybody knows it in it's day-by-day tests/usages... > > I disagree with the tests. CFMX is not 10% faster than CF5... It looks > that MM doesn't take in consideration the time (very long, specially on > templates that calls lots of includes, such as fusebox ones), to the > just-in-time compiler finish it's job (which takes 100% of my CPU)... > I've told once and I'm gonna say it again: it's a pain in the ass wait > CFMX compiles my templates everytime I modify it. In a production > environment this is acceptable but in a development environment is realy > bad! It becames painless if you use 1Gb processors or faster but... > Well, does anybody has the same complain? > > []'s > Alex > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
