Yes, includes. This might be the issue. Java might take longer to open and close each instance compared to CF5 interpreting text files on the fly.
Of course my test was not wholly scientific. I took a selection of pages within the website and repeatedly called these pages: there was a dramatic difference. I then uninstalled and installed 5 and was shocked that 5 was then faster. Paolo -----Original Message----- From: Kola Oyedeji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 12 February 2003 18:27 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] CFMX is second class Also did you say you access 40 or so pages in each hit? Are these includes? Kola >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Justin MacCarthy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: 12 February 2003 17:58 >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] CFMX is second class >> >> Interesting. Couple of questions. >> >> What sort of processes did you find to be slower? >> Was it all pages or stuff that used cfquery or cfloops of cffile or >> whatever? >> Were you using the same web server? >> What load server did you use? >> Full version of CFMX or developer Version ? (anyone know if dev version >> uses >> SMP?) >> Which OS ? >> How many CPUS ? >> >> Again I'm not arguing against your statement, just like to know more >> about >> this stuff. >> >> Cheers Justin >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Paolo Piponi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: 12 February 2003 17:55 >> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' >> Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] CFMX is second class >> >> >> Oh, yes. Absolutely. >> >> In fact, I had seen many reports beforehand of poor CFMX performance and >> I >> wondered myself how much was down to first time performance. >> >> Unfortunately, my tests were based on real comparisons after compiling. >> Unless, of course, CFMC decided to recompile some of the 40-odd cfm pages >> that I access on each hit. If so, same goes. >> >> Paolo >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >From: Justin MacCarthy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: 12 February 2003 17:40 >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: RE: [ cf-dev ] CFMX is second class >> >> >> I'm not saying your are wrong. Just wondering how you tested this? >> I presume you discounted the first time the page was loaded? >> >> >> Thanks >> >> Justin >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >From: Paolo Piponi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: 12 February 2003 17:40 >> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' >> Subject: [ cf-dev ] CFMX is second class >> >> >> After a month upgrading a 4000 page application (1% pages needed fixing) >> and >> testing and after spending 2 days trying to install CFMX on our >> development >> server, I have come to the conclusion it is too slow. >> >> I even backed out of CFMX and ran CF5 once again on the same machine and >> my >> results show that CFMX is between 15-30% slower. I give a range here >> because >> whilst CF5 was consistent in its reporting, CFMX was very erratic and >> frequently reported very poor times. >> >> Although not what my decision was based on (nor the figure above) when >> monitoring the activity, a web page run on CF5 peaked at 16% CPU and the >> same page on CFMX peaked at 32% - on the same machine. >> >> The benefits of upgrading (some bug fixes, CFCs, etc.) were not important >> enough. I was expecting for at least the same performance and was hoping >> for >> something better. >> >> I am about to report back to my 'superiors' that CFMX is a no-go. >> >> However, after sending countless messages to you guys bugging you for >> support I thought I might pass it back to you one more time for comment. >> >> Paolo >> >> PS Unless a future upgrade recognises this performance issue and we have >> another window of opportunity we will not be upgrading for a very long >> time. >> It seems that Macromedia have been so obsessed with competing for all >> round >> integration they have forgotten what they are here for - to chuck out >> some >> HTML. If this is the direction Macromedia are now going, although very >> reluctantly, we might end of ditching CF, at least for some projects. >> CFMX >> is a second-class web application. I seem to remember a company by the >> name >> of Netscape that went down a similar road. >> >> -- >> ** Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40lists.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For human help, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> ** Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40lists.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For human help, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> -- >> ** Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40lists.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For human help, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> ** Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40lists.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For human help, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ** Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40lists.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For human help, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ** Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40lists.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For human help, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
