Damon Cooper wrote:
>
> Hi Edwin,
Edward..
>
> Regarding your question about the # Sim Req setting in the tests, the
> results table on Page 12 simply documents the *optimal* setting on each
> version of the product. We tested all settings to find the optimal values
> for CF4.5, then re-tested to find the optimal values for CF5.
So, what you're saying is that you tested multiple times, at multiple
sim. request levels, and your peak pages/sec were at 1 sim. request for
CF4.5 and 4 for CF5. Okay, this makes sense. I think it shows a
scalibility problem in the design of the test application, but it makes
sense as far as the results go.
Does the document explain this? I didn't notice it, and hence came to
the conclusion that I did.
> I would encourage all customers to spend a few minutes/hours re-tuning the #
> Sim Req after upgrading to CF5 if their servers experience busy periods to
> ensure they're getting the maximum possible scalability CF5 is capable of
> (and it's nigh-and-day compared to the old CF4.x internals, believe me).
> Results from our test application won't be as interesting to you as results
> from testing your application on CF4.x vs CF5, obviously. Like we did,
> however, be sure to tune the # Sim Requests to be sure you're getting
> maximum performance in both cases.
Yes, we have done this, and have noticed that CF5 is able to handle
heigher loads before crashing and perform better at those heigher loads.
> Hope that helps.
Yes, it does - thanks.
>
> - Damon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edward Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 10:08 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Review: CF 5.0
>
> I'm of the opinion that Macromedia cooked the benchmark results to get
> what they wanted. Either that, or I'm reading them wrong. Macromedia's
> benchmark document is here:
>
> http://www.macromedia.com/software/coldfusion/productinfo/performance_brief/
> cf5_perf_brief.pdf
>
> Please check out page 12 of the PDF.
>
> In the table of settings, note that Macromedia set the 4.5 server to 1
> thread per cpu. This is contrary to their own 4.5 tuning specs, and
> certainly nothing any of us would do on a production server
> ('simultaneous requests' in the table). Am I reading this wrong? On
> the 5.0 server, they set to 4 threads per cpu.
>
> I find it hard to believe that they would skew their testing so
> obviously, but I can't find any other conclusion.
>
> Comments?
>
> Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
> Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
--
Edward Smith Internet Broadcasting System
Director of Architecture http://www.ibsys.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
