On Thursday, Jan 9, 2003, at 14:41 US/Pacific, Ken Wilson wrote: > In scanning through it one question pops to mind. On page 7 it states > that > "trusted cache" was enabled on both CFMX Enterprise and CFMX for JRun > but it > does not state that it was turned on for CF5. Wouldn't that tend to > skew the > results in favor of the CFMX flavors from the outset? Right after the
I can't speak to that, except to say that my experience so far has been that the systems have been configured as close to identical as possible for all of the performance briefs released so far. > release of CFMX I seem to recall some folks discussing that file system > access was noticeably slower under CFMX (particularly to Fusebox folks > with > lots of cfincludes) which makes me wonder what a more equivalent > comparison > between CF5 and CFMX would reflect. I think the Fusebox / cfinclude issue was to do with first pass compiling being very slow. Once .cfm pages are compiled (to Java and then to .class), they are loaded into memory in the JVM. There is no further disk activity (beyond checking timestamps and that only if trusted cache is OFF). Sean A Corfield -- Director, Architecture Web Technology Group -- Macromedia, Inc. tel: (415) 252-2287 -- cell: (415) 717-8473 aim/iChat: seancorfield -- http://www.macromedia.com An Architect's View -- http://www.macromedia.com/go/arch_blog ColdFusion MX and JRun 4 now available for Mac OS X! http://www.macromedia.com/go/cfmxosx ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
