WDDX intensive applications: Applications that require serialization and deserialization of WDDX for every call to the middle-tier. Each web request required one or more calls to the middle-tier.
Great performance: The applications were able to scale to meet the demand the users placed on them with only a couple of servers. These applications successfully handled 10-100 million page views per month. 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 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 1:57 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources? > > How about details on what you mean by... > > "successfully been able to achieve great performance" > "intensive applications" > > > On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Matt Liotta wrote: > > > Sorry, I no longer work for the companies in question, so I can't give > > exact details. > > > > 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: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 1:14 PM > > > To: CF-Talk > > > Subject: Re: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources? > > > > > > Can you give us some details? > > > > > > Is this performance equal in (CF 4.5, 5, and MX)? > > > What software did you use for Load Testing? No of users? Machine? OS? > > > Client Scope WDDX involved? > > > Data store WDDX involved? > > > Any performance results.. would be really appreciated. > > > > > > Joe > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 1:35 PM > > > Subject: RE: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources? > > > > > > > > > > I have successfully been able to achieve great performance out of > > WDDX > > > > intensive applications using CF 4.5, 5, and MX. > > > > > > > > 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: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 10:15 AM > > > > > To: CF-Talk > > > > > Subject: Re: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources? > > > > > > > > > > Stace, > > > > > No..Not Client Scope. That would be a real big > > > > problem..(client > > > > > scope WDDX)... if all this > > > > > turns out to be true....(WDDX Serialize - Deserialize) > > > > performance > > > > > in CFMX unless there > > > > > is an optmized way(cfmx) to code WDDX. Yea.. WDDX in > > client > > > > scope > > > > > is > > > > > great... > > > > > The App am dealing with...WDDX is written to the database > > for > > > > > Content MGMT, > > > > > i didnt code this.. am not sure.. why the developer used > > this > > > > > method..The data > > > > > is even redundant. > > > > > Have you had a chance to LOAD TEST any Client Scope WDDX > > in > > > > > CFMX..? > > > > > Curious? > > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "Stacy Young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 12:10 PM > > > > > Subject: RE: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Joe I'm curious...these objects...are they wddx packets > > stored > > > > in > > > > > client > > > > > > scope which in turn is in your client variable datasource? > > > > > > > > > > > > Stace > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Joe Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 11:54 AM > > > > > > To: CF-Talk > > > > > > Subject: Re: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources? > > > > > > > > > > > > Sean, > > > > > > I havent come to a final test result.. but i think we > > are > > > > > narrowing > > > > > > it > > > > > > down to the Complex Object(WDDX) returned from the data > > > > store > > > > > > that gets parsed out WDDX2CFML.. > > > > > > Custom Tags are probably running ok/fast.. probably its > > the > > > > WDDX > > > > > > parsing..in CFMX that causes the CPU to run 80-90%... > > > > Atleast we > > > > > > are seeing a pattern here with tests. > > > > > > I will try to write case/result...end of this week or > > so. > > > > > > Is it possible that you can find out.. > > > > > > How the Java Implementation of WDDX2CFML has changed in > > > > CFMX? > > > > > > Any WDDX implementation changes(Not in docs) will be > > > > helpful. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > From: "Sean A Corfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 11:00 AM > > > > > > Subject: Re: CFMX Taking all CPU Resources? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 30, 2002, at 07:26 , Joe Eugene wrote: > > > > > > > > Do you know of any internal WDDX implementation > > > > differences > > > > > > > > between > > > > > > > > CFMX and CF5.0 .. CFMX > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Er, yes, it was written in C/C++ in CF5 and it's been > > rewritten in > > > > > Java > > > > > in > > > > > > > CFMX. As has everything else. Read my lips Joe: CFMX is a > > complete > > > > > > rewrite. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What does #1 mean? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know. I don't use JavaScript with queries so I don't > > know > > > > what > > > > > the > > > > > > > behavior was or how it changed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If WDDX data is Stored in a DB and output using > > custom > > > > > tags.. > > > > > is > > > > > > > > there any internal CFMX > > > > > > > > implementation that would degrade performance > > compared > > > > to > > > > > CF5.0? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, custom tag invocations are faster in CFMX than in CF5. I > > > > have no > > > > > > > idea about WDDX. Do you *think* it is slower? Have you written > > a > > > > test > > > > > case > > > > > > > and *proved* there is a noticeable difference? Why don't you > > try > > > > it > > > > > for > > > > > > > yourself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sean A Corfield -- http://www.corfield.org/blog/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." > > > > > > > -- Margaret Atwood > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.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
