|
Yes,
true, but that does not count the web service calls that are called by
many other applications on the net that I host as well, that is
simply page views.
Regardless, before production was tested with the
microsoft stress testing tool, as I usually do, but then again I am not sure
that is really an accurate indication. Guess the only thing I can really do is
watch it and see how it reacts.
Thanks!
Robert
Bailey
Famous for
nothing
Well 30k page views
per day breaks down to less than 1 per second, which even a badly written
application should be able to handle on the hardware you
mentioned.
-----Original
Message-----
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Bailey
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 3:28
PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [CFCDev] MVCF at
benorama.com
Yeah, maybe I have
been blessed, lol. As I said, I have had different reactions with MX server on
a regular basis, especially when sand box security is
installed.
15k RPM SCSI drives
(no RAID)
Load, if you are
asking by page views, about 30k page views per day. This what you were
asking?
Thanks!
Robert
Bailey
Famous for
nothing
-----Original
Message-----
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 3:21
PM
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
RE: [CFCDev] MVCF at benorama.com
It is wonderful
that you didn’t have any problems. However, that doesn’t really speak to
whether or not there is scalability issues with the use of CFCs for models
in MVC. What kind of hardware are you using to obtain what kind of
load?
-----Original
Message-----
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Bailey
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 3:06
PM
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
RE: [CFCDev] MVCF at benorama.com
I have not had any
problems on my latest application, using Windows 2000, CFMX with updater 3,
and IIS 5
But then, I have
developed applications on one MX server and when moved to a production MX
server it behaved differently, even when the configuration was the same. Go
figure. The only problem I came across this last project is how MX does not
like to play with some objects nicely, so I had to give some of the work to
ASP, but played together rather nicely.
Thanks!
Robert
Bailey
Famous for
nothing
-----Original
Message-----
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 3:01
PM
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [CFCDev] MVCF at
benorama.com
The testing I
have conducted shows that the using CFCs as models in an MVC pattern will
not scale without serious hacks. It is possible that a framework will
emerge that provides these hacks, but I haven’t seen any as of yet. Please
look to the archives of this list for discussion of these scalability
issues.
-----Original
Message-----
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Davis, Eric
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 1:55
PM
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [CFCDev] MVCF at
benorama.com
Link:
<http://www.benorama.com/coldfusion/>
Word ver.: <http://www.benorama.com/coldfusion/patterns/MVCF.doc>
Has
anyone looked really hard at this one? What are everybody's thoughts on
this?
I'm
looking for a replacement to Fusebox 3 for MX - FBMX is too slow coming,
and probably won't make much sense anyway (I'm guessing it'll be quite
obfuscatory and rather difficult to implement the first five to ten
times).
He's
put together quite a presentation, and he about has me convinced, if only
I can simplify the structure a bit. I'm trying to find the right
methodology for my team here to use, and they're NONE of them big
methodology-users.
Anyway, just haven't seen any threads about this,
and wondered if you folks had anything to say on the
subject.
Which
of course you must; you always do. ;)
Thanks,
ecd.
--
Eric C.
Davis
Programmer/Analyst I
Georgia Department of
Transportation
Office of I.T. Applications
404.463.2860.158
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
