Maybe you didn't know how to write fast code in CF 5. For example, are you using custom tags?
-Matt > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 12:13 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX) > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.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
