I've changed all the MACHII_CONFIG_MODE settings back to -1 Some were already set to -1, some were set to 0 and some were set to 1. There is no explanation or docos explaining why or why not, but they are all -1 now.
Most of these apps, if they are run, would be run overnight from England by 1 person, so they are probably not competing for resources anyway. Just had to search up and down the directory trees looking for MachII apps. No one seems to know how many there are or how often they get used. We are running version 1.1.0 Is 1.1.1 really much faster? More importantly, there are no issues with the upgrade? thanks, Stephen On Sep 17, 11:43 am, "christophe albrech" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > yeah dude, that's madness to have it set up that way on a live box. doesn't > really explain the crashes though, should just make your app run a bit slow. > > you should also install the latest version of machii, it's faster. > > On 9/14/07, Stephen M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Every one of the MachII apps has <cfset MACHII_CONFIG_MODE = 1 /> > > > That's not usual is it? Why would they do that? The first thing you > > read (well half way down the second page) in the MachII getting > > Started doc is the bit that says set MACHII_CONFIG_MODE to -1 (never > > reload) for production. > > > Stephen > > > On Sep 14, 12:47 pm, "Steve Onnis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Personally I would be looking at the MachII sites. I have found them to > > be > > > very resource hungry as they are storing a lot of stuff in the memory > > and if > > > you are running multiple sites using it, that may be whats causing your > > > memory usage. > > > > Although if it was fine untill you put the shadow app on it, then maybe > > the > > > shadow app just pushed it over the edge. I don't know anything about > > shadow > > > and how it handles cfc persistence but maybe it also stores a lot of > > stuff > > > in memory. > > > > Steve > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf > > > > Of Stephen M > > > Sent: Friday, 14 September 2007 12:37 PM > > > To: cfaussie > > > Subject: [cfaussie] Re: CFMX 6.1 Admin > > > > On Sep 14, 12:14 pm, "Dale Fraser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Cough 6.1 > > > > > Umm, upgrade due soon? > > > > Yeah, we're going to CF8 --- WooHoo!! But that won't happen for a few > > weeks > > > and I need to stabilise this thing right now. > > > > > Anyway, 6.1 was pretty stable, you shouldn't have to tweak those > > settings. > > > > If you are getting those types of messages and crashes, I'd seriously > > > > be having a look at your apps to see if your doing anything silly. > > > > There's lots of stuff on this server besides the Shado, quite a few > > MachII > > > and then a few plain ole HTML with bits of java thrown in. I've only > > been > > > here 10 days and I'm finding new stuff every day. It could be a > > sociability > > > issue. But naturally Cold Fusion itself tends to be blamed. > > > > > Regards > > > > Dale Fraser > > > > >http://learncf.com > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > > > Behalf > > > > > Of Stephen M > > > > Sent: Friday, 14 September 2007 11:34 AM > > > > To: cfaussie > > > > Subject: [cfaussie] CFMX 6.1 Admin > > > > > I've got a 6.1MX system that is crashing way too often. It might be > > > > the Shado content management setup, but I'm asking that question on > > > > another forum. > > > > > Ithought I should try to tweak the admin settings. I have just found > > > > a few java.lang.OutOfMemoryError errors in the exception log so that > > > > means I should increase the JVM Max Heap size doesn't it? > > > > > Although the OutOfMemoryError doesn't always correspond to the crashes > > > > so there is probably something else going on as well. > > > > > At the moment the JVM Max Heap size is set to 512MB, there is no Min > > > > size set. A bit of googling through various java mailing list > > > > archives suggests I should set Min to the same as Max for improved > > > > performance. > > > > > Any suggestions? Its way too late for load testing. I've just got to > > > > stick something in to see if it works better. I'm aware that > > > > increasing the Max heap setting makes for more work for the Garbage > > > > Collector and could therefore result in decreased performance. Are > > > > there any other potential problems? > > > > > To complicate thing I have the following startup string set. Again, > > > > my search of the archives suggests that MaxpermSize is a different > > > > parameter not related to Max or Min Heap size. Should I be adjusting > > > > this string as well.? > > > > > -server -Dsun.io.useCanonCaches=false -Xbootclasspath/ > > > > a:"{application.home}/../lib/webchartsJava2D.jar" -XX:MaxPermSize=128m > > > > -XX:+UseParallelGC > > > > winmail.dat > > > 4KDownload --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
