Hmm.. every code benchmark I've run says that MX (even in the debug/beta stages) is faster than 5.. I'll try to post some benchmarking code when I get the opportunity
--- Billy Cravens -----Original Message----- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 2:08 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX) Anything built on top of J2EE is going to be slower on a single machine. If you are looking for a fast server-side scripting language, your choices are PHP, CF 5, and a few niche players. If you don't mind buying a bunch of machines than something based on J2EE would be the better choice. CFMX fits in this category. -Matt > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Everland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 9:23 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX) > > I for one find speed to be a major deciding factor, I really like that it > is > J2EE compliant, buzzword, buzzword compliant, buzzword this, but I can > tell > all you Macromedia guys this, if it isn't faster, I won't be able to > upgrade here. It will be a customer relations nightmare, an app that once > performed blazingly fast now stalls left and right, I can't be having > that, > if I test out MX and it really is slower, I will have no choice, but to > invest my time and resources into another platform for the web that does > things faster. So whatever you do make this a priority, I am sure I am not > the only person who thinks this way, heck most of the arguments between > ASP > and CF for the past 3 years has been that ASP is super fast and CF is > super > slow when in actuallity they are very close to each other. If MX is that > much slower a lot of us will not be able to fight the good battle anymore > in > defending CF. > > > Robert Everland III > Dixon Ticonderoga > Web Developer Extraordinaire > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark A. Kruger - CFG [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 12:03 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX) > > > Jesse, > > Yes, subsequent requests ARE faster than initial requests. But I have to > say they are still painfully slow when compaired to CF 5. Slow enough to > be > a non-starter for some of our aps. In addition, if you plan on selling web > services you already have a big latency problem that you are constantly > battling. Anything time saved on the server greatly benefits the user > experience - so this is a real issue for the "brave new world". NET's > CLR > is blazingly fast at delivering web service content. CFMX must compete > favorably with it to gain headway in the web services arena. > > -mk > > P.S. - yeah yeah, I know "it's not optimized". But let's be honest, as a > rule, JSP is pretty doggy. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jesse Noller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 10:39 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX) > > > Also think about the performance that you're seeing right now. > > On first run, a CFMX page "compiles". The pages are no longer interpreted > on > the fly. This means your initial "First Hit" is going to take a few > seconds, > but every request after this is going to much faster. > > It's a complaint we've seen on the forums, Ie, "I just installed, why is > the > admin so slow" the answer is simple, the admin is compiling itself for the > first time. If you hit the admin after the first time, you'll note it's > much > snappier. > > The "initial compile" bump is being examined and worked on, but it does > not > change the fact that the pages are being COMPILED, not interpreted as > presvious versions. > > As for Matt's comment about JSP, this should not be the case in the end. I > know I for one want CFMX to be as fast, and faster still, then CF5. This > is > our goal. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dave Watts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:39 AM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX) > > > > > > > So, in a small company like mine, where I have maybe 5 > > > people using CF at once on an intranet application, (I > > > also use CF from a shared host) there is no advantage > > > to going to MX? I'm still waiting for a great reason > > > to upgrade to CF 5.0. > > > > Sure, there are lots of reasons! They're not necessarily performance > > reasons, though: > > > > 1. The ability to publish and consume web services, > > 2. Verity K2 (since you're not even on CF 5 yet) is much > > faster than the > > previous version of Verity, > > 3. A working Advanced Security interface for developers > > (Sandbox security), > > 4. Charting, > > 5. and much, much more! CFCs, UDFs (again, since you're not > > on CF 5) ... > > > > Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software > > http://www.figleaf.com/ > > voice: (202) 797-5496 > > fax: (202) 797-5444 > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
