And my test was done under zero load, so under peak load this number could go up. Hmmm... I don' t know if I should install fuseguard or not in production. Now I am undecided...
Brook -----Original Message----- From: Dominic Watson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: June-13-11 10:02 AM To: cf-talk Subject: Re: Fuseguard processing time Of course, a measure on single hits is not a good measure of the performance impact. You might be happyish adding a 200ms average at peak load to a high traffic site - but who knows what the real impact is without a proper performance test / pushing it live and hoping... Dominic On 13 June 2011 16:57, Russ Michaels <[email protected]> wrote: > > LOL, ok well perhaps I am just used to see much worse loading times on > most peoples sites. > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Peter Boughton <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > 200ms is still a good page load time. >> Not when the original was 20ms! >> >> A page that takes 0.2s to load is no longer "instant", there's a >> detectable delay, which isn't good. >> >> >> >> Does it really take 145ms to check for SQL Injection? :/ >> >> What's it doing that takes that long!? >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:345242 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
