> So it appears your choice is to properly lock access to shared variables
and take the slight performance hit
> using either automatic locking or manual locking, or do not properly lock
access to shared variables and have
> an unstable server
If I understand your response correctly (which I may not have), here is my
reply:
I wasn't saying that you shouldn't properly lock you application variables.
You always should lock those variables. However, with the request scope you
do not have to lock your variables therefore you gain performance using the
request scope. Of course setting your constants for every user with the
request scope also degrades some performance, but I think that the tradeoff
makes it worth using the Reqeust scope.
--Greg
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Theobald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: Request VS Application scope
> But as a recent thread discussed, proper coding requires that you should
always lock every access to an Application variable, in which case automatic
read locking on Application scope variables does not degrade performance any
more than manual read locking of every read of an Application scope
variable. So it appears your choice is to properly lock access to shared
variables and take the slight performance hit using either automatic locking
or manual locking, or do not properly lock access to shared variables and
have an unstable server.
>
> Richard Kern wrote:
> [...]Summary of lock testing on CF Server
> [...]First the method of locking whether on the server or actual page does
not
> significantly affect the application performance.[...]
>
>
> At 03:38 PM 1/2/01 -0500, Greg Wolfinger wrote:
> >To my understanding using automatic read locking degrades the performance
of
> >a server greatly. Also, any performance degrade with using the Request
> >scope won't make too much of a noticable difference. This is only my
> >understanding, but I'm not positive. So as far as I am concerned the use
of
> >the Request scope is the way to go.
> >
> >--Greg
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Bryan Love" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 2:43 PM
> >Subject: Request VS Application scope
> >
> >
> >> Here's an interesting question:
> >>
> >> We all know that setting global variables in the request scope is
faster
> >and
> >> more thread-safe than using the Application scope, but does that remain
> >true
> >> as we scale?
> >>
> >>
> >> Environment: 50 request variables are set in application.cfm (so they
are
> >> set every time a page is called) OR
> >> 50 application variables are set one time.
> >>
> >> Scenario 1:
> >> One person hits the site. One of the following happens depending on
> >> how you've written the application:
> >> a. 50 request variables are set and five are read
> >> b. 5 application variables are read
> >>
> >> Scenario 2:
> >> 5,000 people hit the site at once (i.e. Amazon opens sale of PS2 to
> >> public). One of the following happens:
> >> a. 250,000 request variables are set and 25,000 are read
> >> b. 25,000 application variables are read with automatic read
> >> locking set to ON in the CF admin
> >>
> >>
> >> I would very much like to hear some feedback on this if anyone wants to
> >> hypothesize about the results.
> >>
> >> Bryan Love ACP
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Paid Sponsorship ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Get Your Own Dedicated Win2K Server! Instant Activation for $99/month w/Free
Setup from SoloServer PIII600 / 128 MB RAM / 20 GB HD / 24/7/365 Tech Support
Visit SoloServer, https://secure.irides.com/clientsetup.cfm.
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
