> Our application mix that needs the performance runs mostly > between midnight and mid-morning, and is a suite of CF > scripts that interact with webservices from the major search > engines. Lots of XML parsing and processing with lots of > database activity to store the data. Some of the XML files > are large, and therefore use up a lot of JVM when being > processed (since at some point in time there needs to be a > copy of both the CFHTTP data returned from the webservice as > well as the structure being created by the xmlParse > function). We have a pretty well configured SQL 2000 server, > although the production could admitedly use some tuning.
Why are you doing this XML parsing from CF at all? I'm sure there are more efficient alternatives for that sort of thing. You could offload it from your web servers entirely. Alternatively, you could simply install CF on other machines solely for this task, although that might not be cost-effective. > From a processor perspective, what are people's experiences > on the topic of multiple processors versus > dual-core/quad-core processors? Some of what I've seen with > our mix of servers is that the multiple-core processors are > not always a big win over multiple processors. I would still > have the limiation on Java/CF memory space. I think that generally, multiple processors (which may have multiple cores themselves) will provide better multithreading than a single processor with multiple cores, but I don't think this makes that much difference in the long run. > What about just running a stack of multiple servers? This > helps solve the Java/CF memory space problem. What about > just running a stack of multiple (cheap) workstations, > possibly with dual-core processors, instead of a big honking > (expensive) server (we'll call this the Google approach)? In the Google approach, machines fail regularly and get replaced regularly. It requires certain economies of scale you probably don't have. > What about virtualization? Any experiences using either > Microsoft's software or VMware on a server with an instance > of CF on each of them? That also solves the memory problem > (presuming sufficient physical memory), but would seem to be > highly sensitive to the number and effectiveness of the > processors/cores. It seems like it might have an > administrative advantage over simply running multiple > instances of CF on the same server since I wouldn't have to > worry about port numbers and such on the same server, because > each would be running on port 80 on its own IP address within > the virtualized server. Virtualization is certainly a viable option, and you can run your virtual environment on as big an x86 box as you can get (or multiple boxes, via VMware Infrastructure). Each VM will require more resources than an individual CF/JRun instance would require, though. If your only goal is maximization of resource usage, using VMs doesn't buy you anything here, unless different VMs would have different resource allocation requirements. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers in Washington DC, Atlanta, Chicago, Baltimore, Northern Virginia, or on-site at your location. Visit http://training.figleaf.com/ for more information! This email has been processed by SmoothZap - www.smoothwall.net ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Get the answers you are looking for on the ColdFusion Labs Forum direct from active programmers and developers. http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/webforums/forum/categories.cfm?forumid-72&catid=648 Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:284734 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
