> > What sort of processes did you find to be slower? > > Each hit to our site calls in about 40-odd pages. I couldn't identify > anything obvious except a general slowing down. The processing-time > reporting does differ between 5 and MX so a detailed comparison was > difficult. > My mouth is hanging wide!!! I've been involved in some pretty big applications in my time and I've never had a situation where there have been 40+ includes in each request to the application!!!! Even Synergy didn't have that many includes in one page!
One thing to bear in mind with this is that everytime you make a request to the index.cfm and include different pages you will be compiling each of those templates! First run through a template will take anywhere between 1 and 10 seconds for it to compile. If you have 40 templates to compile that's a hell of a lot of work to do and a hell of a lot of code that's going to be stashed in memory too! > > > Which OS ? > > W2000 Server > How come you had so much hassle installing CFMX on win2k?? It just installs! I've got cf5 and cfmx running side by side here, no problem and CFMX installs easily on linux too! You just have to follow the instructions and attach the hooks into the web server after it installed! I would be tempted to use a technical term and say that your OS is shagged! > 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. > I use a sort of XFB or as its called on other lists Tazboxfuseabix2.5893.34a. I digress, the point being that applications include multiple files for queries, actions and displays, as well as global settings and layouts. I confess that I was concerned moving a couple of apps to CFMX that there was going to be a degredation in the speed due to the way in which CFMX now processes templates and includes, but have been pleasantly surprised to find that after a template has been included and compiled the application runs like the proverbial dogdoo off a stick! Of course you've got to be sure that the cache can hold sufficient templates. (See the CF admin settings) > 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. > Try reinstalling your box from scratch, because from all the troubles you've had there sounds to be something seriously unhappy on your box. Once you've done that install CF5 and CFMX side by side. Don't connect CFMX straight into IIS (or any other webserver for that matter) during the install, let it run off of its own server (runs on port 8500). BTW : this is the way you should install CFMX whether its to run alongside CF5 or not. Connect to your web server after you've installed it. Heck!! Look at me!!! I like CFMX!!! When did that happen!!!???!! I may even actually be looking at cfcs in the next week as well!! How scary is that!!?? Anyway, Paolo, I really would recommend sorting your box out and trying again. Regards Stephen -- ** 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]
