You and I both know that Solaris can't compete in the web space that is dominated by 1-2 processor machines. Sparc is too slow and Solaris's locks too granular.
-Matt > -----Original Message----- > From: Jesse Noller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 2:32 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: CFMX - why so many runtime processes & are they really needed > ? > > BAD MATT!! ::hits matt with a stick:: > > Jesse Noller > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Macromedia Server Development > Unix/Linux "special guy" > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 4:59 PM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: RE: CFMX - why so many runtime processes & are they really > > needed ? > > > > No, but you can boost your performance by moving to Linux > > > > -Matt > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Stacy Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 11:53 AM > > > To: CF-Talk > > > Subject: RE: CFMX - why so many runtime processes & are they really > > needed > > > ? > > > > > > Can we boost performance on Solaris by using IBMs JRE? > > > > > > Stace > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Jesse Noller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 11:25 AM > > > To: CF-Talk > > > Subject: RE: CFMX - why so many runtime processes & are they really > > needed > > > ? > > > > > > http://www-105.ibm.com/developerworks/tools.nsf/dw/java-all- > > > byname?OpenDocum > > > ent&Count=500&loc=j > > > > > > Jesse Noller > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Macromedia Server Development > > > Unix/Linux "special guy" > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Robert Everland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 8:24 AM > > > > To: CF-Talk > > > > Subject: RE: CFMX - why so many runtime processes & are they really > > > > needed ? > > > > > > > > Where can you get ibm's jre? > > > > > > > > Robert Everland III > > > > Web Developer Extraordinaire > > > > Dixon Ticonderoga Company > > > > http://www.dixonusa.com > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Jesse Noller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 7:12 PM > > > > To: CF-Talk > > > > Subject: RE: CFMX - why so many runtime processes & are they really > > > > needed ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Linus does make a good point, and I do kinda like the idea, but the > > > > implementation is "the suck". > > > > > > > > I haven't been able to do much kernel hacking lately, but I'll track > > > down > > > > and check out the IBM patch when I get a chance. I also need to muck > > > with > > > > some JREs, IBM's jre is the fastest I know of, they're smart++. > > > > > > > > Jesse Noller > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Macromedia Server Development > > > > Unix/Linux "special guy" > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 6:59 PM > > > > > To: CF-Talk > > > > > Subject: RE: CFMX - why so many runtime processes & are they > > really > > > > > needed ? > > > > > > > > > > I like Linus's model better. He states that we shouldn't limit > > > > > ourselves to just processes and threads. He thinks we should have > > > > > variable weight processes. Some would be as light as threads while > > > > > others could be as heavy as processes, but you could also define > > more > > > > > granular differences. > > > > > > > > > > I hear IBM has a new implementation of PThreads for Linux that is > > > > > supposed to rock. It would be interesting to use that patch and > > see > > > > > what kind of difference it makes with CFMX. > > > > > > > > > > -Matt > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Jesse Noller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 3:48 PM > > > > > > To: CF-Talk > > > > > > Subject: RE: CFMX - why so many runtime processes & are they > > really > > > > > needed > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > > > > > I know that matt. There was a couple of fights over l-k about > > > > > > whether > > > > > or > > > > > > not to actually move to a threading model with 2.4. The plain > > fact > > > > > > is > > > > > that > > > > > > many people wanted to stick with the per-process method of doing > > > > > things. > > > > > > The actual threading implementation for Linux is pretty weak > > (having > > > > > > worked with it a lot) but it's been improving. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's nothing more than a thread emulation system with the > > pthread > > > > > > libraries. But, one can hope that they'll see the light of day > > and > > > > > > actually move to the solaris world of thread modeling. > > > > > > > > > > > > :) > > > > > > > > > > > > Jesse Noller > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Macromedia Server Development > > > > > > Unix/Linux "special guy" > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 6:27 PM > > > > > > > To: CF-Talk > > > > > > > Subject: RE: CFMX - why so many runtime processes & are they > > > > > > > really needed ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am sure you know this Jesse, but I'll point it out anyway. > > There > > > > > is no > > > > > > > such thing as threads in the Linux world. For Posix compliance > > > > > > > Linux > > > > > has > > > > > > > a PThread library, but each thread is implemented using > > clone(), > > > > > which > > > > > > > is actually just a fork() with a shared stack. Thus, those are > > all > > > > > > > processes; not threads. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Matt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > From: Jesse Noller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 2:38 PM > > > > > > > > To: CF-Talk > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: CFMX - why so many runtime processes & are they > > > > > really > > > > > > > needed > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dick: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I don't know who told you that, but they were > > > > wrong. > > > > > > > Each > > > > > > > > of those "20 or so" java processes you see on Linux are > > actually > > > > > > > nothing > > > > > > > > more than Java threads. If you were on a solaris box and did > > a > > > > > > > > ps > > > > > axww > > > > > > > > you'd see 1 master process with a bunch of children. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Linux threading being what it is, it displays the > > individual > > > > > > > threads > > > > > > > > as individual processes. This makes for interesting output > > to > > > > > > > > say > > > > > the > > > > > > > > least. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As for the actual "cfusion" binary, this is a C launcher > > > > that > > > > > > > reads > > > > > > > > the settings in the JVM.CONFIG file in runtime/bin, sets up > > the > > > > > > > > environment, and is the "master control program" for > > CFMX/JRun. > > > > > > > > It > > > > > has > > > > > > > > other features too, such as an autorestart function that > > will > > > > > > > > make > > > > > > > sure > > > > > > > > that once executed, if the threads begin to die, they are > > > > > recreated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) What do the 20 or so processes do? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothing. They are threads. Welcome to Linux threading, > > it's > > > > > > > > annoying, but meaningless. Those are nothing more than > > Java's > > > > > > > worker-bees. > > > > > > > > The reason you don't see them in OS/X is because OS/X has a > > > > > different > > > > > > > > threading model. If you did a full display on the OS/X > > command > > > > > line to > > > > > > > > display the full thread tree in flat mode, you'd see the > > same > > > > > threads. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Are they really necessary? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Uh, yeah. That's java creating worker processes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If the above is true, how can they be launched > > without > > > > a > > > > > > > C++ > > > > > > > > program > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The C launcher has nothing to do with the threads. The C > > > > > > > launcher is > > > > > > > > the functional equivalent to a ./java cfusion.jar -start > > default > > > > > <PATH > > > > > > > TO > > > > > > > > ALL MY JARs and LIBRARIES> command, with some added > > threading > > > > > > > goodness. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW: You can throw questions like this over the cf-linux > > list, > > > > > it's > > > > > > > easier > > > > > > > > to sort through than the cf-talk list. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am going to be sending out more information about > > > > CFMX-linux > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > soon as I finish the master document I am writing > > (basically, a > > > > > > > complete > > > > > > > > admin/hackers guide to cfmx). It's up to 30 pages! Yay! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Jesse Noller > > > > > > > > Macromedia Server Development > > > > > > > > (Aka - Unix guy) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > From: Dick Applebaum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 4:42 PM > > > > > > > > > To: CF-Talk > > > > > > > > > Subject: CFMX - why so many runtime processes & are they > > > > > > > > > really > > > > > > > needed? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When you start CFMX Linux it launches 20, or so, processes > > all > > > > > named > > > > > > > > > cfusion. (I assume there are similar tasks/threads on > > Win). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have been told that: together, these comprise the "CFMX > > > > > > > environment" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was lead to understand that things such as graphics, > > > > > > > > > database, > > > > > web > > > > > > > > > services, etc were each handled by a separate one of these > > > > > > > processes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am porting CFMX Linux to Mac OS X. Under OS X I cannot > > run > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > /bin/cfusion program that apparently launches all these > > > > > processes. > > > > > > > (The > > > > > > > > > program is Intel C++) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I assumed that all the CF things (services/functions, > > > > > whatever) > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > I could not make work under OS X were because I couldn't > > > > > > > > > launch > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > process to handle it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This apparently is *Not True!" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By poking around I have been able to use database (MySQL > > and > > > > > > > PostgreSQL, > > > > > > > > > graphics and web Services (almost), > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I guess I have several questions: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) What do the 20 or so processes do? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Are they really necessary? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) If the above is true, how can they be launched without > > a > > > > > > > > > C++ > > > > > > > program > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > TIA > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dick > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. 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
