ummm...if you were under the NDA...then you were part of the beta and should have tested...then bitched and moaned ;-)
Bryan Stevenson VP & Director of E-Commerce Development Electric Edge Systems Group Inc. t. 250.920.8830 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------- Macromedia Associate Partner www.macromedia.com --------------------------------------------------------- Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group Founder & Director www.cfug-vancouverisland.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 12:22 PM Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX) > This is the web industry remember. If you move too slow people think you > are dead. How long have we been waiting on Neo? How long have we been > under NDA where would couldn't point out the problems with Neo? It is > high time to start bickering and complaining, so that CF 6.1 will rock. > > -Matt > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bill Wheatley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 12:15 PM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX) > > > > :) Give the M & M boys and girls a chance. We're all free to move to > > another architecture if we want but i would rather give them a chance > to > > get it right for the final release and then we can bicker and complain > > about how CF6 will never be as fast as we want it. > > > > my 2 credits > > > > Bill Wheatley > > Senior Database Developer > > Ediets.com > > Macromedia Certified Coldfusion Developer > > 954.360.9022 X159 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 2:59 PM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX) > > > > > > I wasn't comparing 4.5.1 and 5. In fact in an earlier email I pointed > > out the almost 400% performance increase between those revisions. > > However, let's be realistic about what is going to be the determining > > factor in CFMX performance; the underlying J2EE engine. While I > respect > > your efforts on CF for Linux thus far, I gotta think that IBM has a > bit > > more resources to throw at the problem and they still haven't solved > it. > > > > -Matt > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Jesse Noller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 8:54 AM > > > To: CF-Talk > > > Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX) > > > > > > Matt, here is where you and I disagree alot: > > > > > > CF 5 > performance than 4.5.1, hands down. Period. > > > > > > Hopefully, when we *release* CFMX, CFMX will be > CF5. The > performance > > for > > > the product line has not "plateued". It keeps getting faster. > > > > > > For instance: 4.5.1 linux vs. CF5 linux. Show me that the > performance > > is > > > the same. It is *not*. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:45 AM > > > > To: CF-Talk > > > > Subject: RE: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX) > > > > > > > > > > > > No performance advantage really. You should upgrade for the > > > > new features > > > > though. > > > > > > > > -Matt > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Matthew R. Small [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 8:30 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. > > > > > > > > > > - Matt Small > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:11 AM > > > > > To: CF-Talk > > > > > Subject: CFMX performance (was RE: CF MX) > > > > > > > > > > Yup, you're right. Well in that case on with the ensuing flame > > war. > > > > > > > > > > First the caveats; CFMX has not been tuned for performance yet > > > > according > > > > > to MM. > > > > > > > > > > With that aside, I have been working with Neo since the > > > > alpha days and > > > > > have seen it change quite a bit since then. During that time I > > have > > > > > learned that CFMX will have a performance threshold very > > > > close to that > > > > > of JSP. For those of you who don't know, JSP doesn't > > > > actually perform > > > > > that well. On a single server, a properly built CF 5 > > > > application would > > > > > blow away a properly built JSP application. This is a fact > > > > that can be > > > > > easily proved today. However, JSP is more scalable than CF > > > > 5. This is > > > > an > > > > > important distinction depending on what type of load your > > > > application > > > > is > > > > > planning on supporting. If you are a shared hosting > > > > provider, you will > > > > > be able to support less web applications on the same server > > > > than with > > > > CF > > > > > 5. If you maintain a small site that only uses a single server, > > you > > > > will > > > > > need more server resources to provide the same level of > > performance > > > > you > > > > > are used today with CF 5. > > > > > > > > > > With all that being said, if you currently run a web > > > > application that > > > > > depends on more than one CF server, CFMX is going to be great. > > Using > > > > > J2EE, you will be able to partition your application on top > > > > different > > > > > servers to increase its scalability. With a properly built CFMX > > > > > application you will be able to simply add more servers as > needed. > > > > > > > > > > -Matt > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 7:44 AM > > > > > > To: CF-Talk > > > > > > Subject: RE: CF MX > > > > > > > > > > > > Jump over to the Neo forums on the beta site - Libby English > of > > > > > > Macromedia : "You can now discuss all aspects of the new CF > > > > > release..." > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > Billy Cravens > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 9:39 AM > > > > > > To: CF-Talk > > > > > > Subject: RE: CF MX > > > > > > > > > > > > That information is NDA at this point. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Matt > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: Bill Wheatley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 7:28 AM > > > > > > > To: CF-Talk > > > > > > > Subject: CF MX > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now that i'm at a new job i need tow ork my bosses over to > get > > > > them > > > > > to > > > > > > > upgrade from CF 4 (ugh) to cF MX. i need to find a page > > > > that shows > > > > > the > > > > > > > performance stats compared to older versions any ideas? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill Wheatley > > > > > > > Senior Database Developer > > > > > > > Ediets.com > > > > > > > Macromedia Certified Coldfusion Developer > > > > > > > 954.360.9022 X159 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.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
