I depends. Usually, companies outsource this type of thing to geographically disperse facilities. So, though the Web page(s) of the download process may be located one place, they may (and probably do) offload your actual download to an appropriate server somewhere which does nothing but that.
Of course, I don't know how Macromedia does it. Nevertheless, if the initial page(s) of the download process are located on the same server or cluster as the rest of the Web site proper, it would place some load on the system, though certainly not as much as one of the Macromedia RIAs. I think the problem here is that we're trying to draw a direct comparison between over all page views or hits or whatever and scalability. I know for certain that many of the sites in the list host portions of their Web sites in different locations using various technologies. For instances, there's quite a bit of CGI on Macromedia.com. Consequently, I don't think scalability can be gauged on such broad sweeping figures. Also, I believe Matt brought up the point that the amount of traffic a site receives does not directly equate to the site's scalability. Though one site may receive less traffic than another, the former may still be said to scale better than the latter. In other words, Macromedia.com's ability to handle so many page requests may be more a result of the hardware, not the Web site application. Again, we don't know this because, as Matt has pointed out, detailed figures have not been released. Are Macromedia even using persistent CFCs in the model layer? If not, then Macromedia.com cannot begin to serve as an example to refute Matt's original claim. Benjamin S. Rogers http://www.c4.net/ v.508.240.0051 f.508.240.0057 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 10:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Macromedia.com scalability (was : RE: [CFCDev] MVCF at benorama.com) Again, would the webserver load not somewhat interfere with the cfmx server load? ~Todd At 10:48 AM 3/26/2003 -0500, you wrote: >This just in from the public defender's office :-) ... > >I don't know if this is a fair accusation, Todd. I mean, Matt's got a good >point here: a request to download the Flash player may not at all imply an >execution of any CFC, though it is possible that they go through one as >well. Only someone in MM could tell us that. > >/charlie ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe cfcdev' in the message of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe cfcdev' in the message of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com).
