Re: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit
On 27/05/2010 13:22, BarryC wrote: Hi, After some more testing, thread dumps and operating system process monitoring, we have found that there seems to be a performance issue with files when accessed via NFS. The slow part is when file attributes are being requested for a file on the NFS (this was also shown in the thread dumps with the getBooleanAttributes() function coming up a lot). We have a client with a setup of a NAS (running FreeNas which is FreeBSD) with lots of files behind a few servers and so I took a peek into their CF logs and can see nothing like you are talking about below. The files are mainly just being served up or saved by these servers so it is not quite the same as code files. It makes me wonder if the permissions aspect is the important one. You say NFS, do you mean that literally, not NTFS via samba (SMB) or something? I might ask them if they mind us running some tests at the weekend when its quiet for them and see what we get. Kym K We have done a couple of tests with rather interesting results (we set up a specific test that loops over some directories and looks at the files in those directories, it does a fileExists(..) on each file in those directories); 1. test local file access time. 2. test file access time via share mounted via NFS path e.g. \\server \path\sharedfiles\ 3. test file access time via an iSCSI mounted drive (still over the network, but the operating system sees it as a lettered drive e.g. d: \sharedfiles\ The local file access time was very fast, for the 20 folders it did it in between 16ms and 50ms The FMS access time was very slow, about 3 seconds for the same 20 folders (I'd expect some delay over the network, but this seems rather a lot). The iSCSI mount was surprisingly fast at about 130ms (indicating that network latency time isn't really the issue?) We're a bit stumped, and the systems guys have had a look at options at the NFS end and there doesn't really seem to be much configuration they can do there. Kai, you mentioned that you run some of your servers with an NFS share, but have no problems, how is your share implemented, do you run it on Linux with the windows servers connecting to that? Regards Barry. -- Yours, Kym Kovan mbcomms.net.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
RE: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit
Kym, just to be clear, Barry's observations weren't from his logs. They were from him taking stack traces, so if you don't do that, you wouldn't have seen the problem he did. Would you agree, Barry? /charlie -Original Message- From: cfaussie@googlegroups.com [mailto:cfaus...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kym Kovan Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 1:52 AM To: cfaussie@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit On 27/05/2010 13:22, BarryC wrote: Hi, After some more testing, thread dumps and operating system process monitoring, we have found that there seems to be a performance issue with files when accessed via NFS. The slow part is when file attributes are being requested for a file on the NFS (this was also shown in the thread dumps with the getBooleanAttributes() function coming up a lot). We have a client with a setup of a NAS (running FreeNas which is FreeBSD) with lots of files behind a few servers and so I took a peek into their CF logs and can see nothing like you are talking about below. The files are mainly just being served up or saved by these servers so it is not quite the same as code files. It makes me wonder if the permissions aspect is the important one. You say NFS, do you mean that literally, not NTFS via samba (SMB) or something? I might ask them if they mind us running some tests at the weekend when its quiet for them and see what we get. Kym K -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
Re: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit
On 28/05/2010 06:59, BarryC wrote: Yes, that's correct Charlie. Kym, the NFS is a proper NFS. and I've been googling and it seems in a lot of contexts NFS on 2008 is faster than most linux versions. It used to run like a dog and MS brought a new stack in 2008 that goes like a train. So NFS per se should not be an issue. If you could run a simple test, it would be handy I'll see what I can do. -- Yours, Kym Kovan mbcomms.net.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
[cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit
Did those references you found say anything about the specific version of windows server 2008, or just in general? There is 2008 R2 for example, but we are on the standard 2008 - not sure if there would be any difference there? Barry On May 28, 1:11 pm, Kym Kovan dev-li...@mbcomms.net.au wrote: On 28/05/2010 06:59, BarryC wrote: Yes, that's correct Charlie. Kym, the NFS is a proper NFS. and I've been googling and it seems in a lot of contexts NFS on 2008 is faster than most linux versions. It used to run like a dog and MS brought a new stack in 2008 that goes like a train. So NFS per se should not be an issue. If you could run a simple test, it would be handy I'll see what I can do. -- Yours, Kym Kovan mbcomms.net.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
Re: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit
On 28/05/2010 11:38, BarryC wrote: Did those references you found say anything about the specific version of windows server 2008, or just in general? There is 2008 R2 for example, but we are on the standard 2008 - not sure if there would be any difference there? The changes came in with straight 2008. -- Yours, Kym Kovan mbcomms.net.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
[cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit
Hi Barry, Might be to do with Windows itself We had this problem awhile back where too many connections were running through, our network guy went on to explain how windows would just cut off connections and start up again a few seconds later in dealing when there are too many connections... we have since swapped around where the drives are and mounted from the SAN the drives to other parts of the network, haven't had that issue where the app would stall momentarily when it was under load... Though if you think about it, it is a good problem to have :) So if you problem seem remote similar might be worth while swapping around how ur drives are mapped to spread the load around abit... Just My 2 cents, Chong On May 28, 11:38 am, BarryC barrychester...@gmail.com wrote: Did those references you found say anything about the specific version of windows server 2008, or just in general? There is 2008 R2 for example, but we are on the standard 2008 - not sure if there would be any difference there? Barry On May 28, 1:11 pm, Kym Kovan dev-li...@mbcomms.net.au wrote: On 28/05/2010 06:59, BarryC wrote: Yes, that's correct Charlie. Kym, the NFS is a proper NFS. and I've been googling and it seems in a lot of contexts NFS on 2008 is faster than most linux versions. It used to run like a dog and MS brought a new stack in 2008 that goes like a train. So NFS per se should not be an issue. If you could run a simple test, it would be handy I'll see what I can do. -- Yours, Kym Kovan mbcomms.net.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
RE: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit
Will be interesting to hear the resolution. I'll note that this was indeed one of the contentions I made in my first reply on the thread, when I said that if you had files on another server or SAN/NAS, that i/o can be costly in some configurations (not inherently so, but worth considering). But your reply was I've done a test already to eliminate the Network File Store by setting up a local copy on the server of the files and testing against that, and the results were the same. So as a matter of understanding what happened, do you know why at the time you got misled by that conclusion, which took us off the scent of that trail? Will just be interesting, forensically. Thanks. /charlie -Original Message- From: cfaussie@googlegroups.com [mailto:cfaus...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of BarryC Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 11:23 PM To: cfaussie Subject: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit Hi, After some more testing, thread dumps and operating system process monitoring, we have found that there seems to be a performance issue with files when accessed via NFS. The slow part is when file attributes are being requested for a file on the NFS (this was also shown in the thread dumps with the getBooleanAttributes() function coming up a lot). We have done a couple of tests with rather interesting results (we set up a specific test that loops over some directories and looks at the files in those directories, it does a fileExists(..) on each file in those directories); 1. test local file access time. 2. test file access time via share mounted via NFS path e.g. \\server \path\sharedfiles\ 3. test file access time via an iSCSI mounted drive (still over the network, but the operating system sees it as a lettered drive e.g. d: \sharedfiles\ The local file access time was very fast, for the 20 folders it did it in between 16ms and 50ms The FMS access time was very slow, about 3 seconds for the same 20 folders (I'd expect some delay over the network, but this seems rather a lot). The iSCSI mount was surprisingly fast at about 130ms (indicating that network latency time isn't really the issue?) We're a bit stumped, and the systems guys have had a look at options at the NFS end and there doesn't really seem to be much configuration they can do there. Kai, you mentioned that you run some of your servers with an NFS share, but have no problems, how is your share implemented, do you run it on Linux with the windows servers connecting to that? Regards Barry -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
[cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit
Yes I was going to mention that, I'm not sure what the story is with that (I'm still wondering that myself) It's possible there were some references still pointing to the shared drive or that the slowness was masked by other things we have since fixed. I'll might see if I can dig up the logs I had for that test. Barry. On May 27, 3:49 pm, charlie arehart charlie_li...@carehart.org wrote: Will be interesting to hear the resolution. I'll note that this was indeed one of the contentions I made in my first reply on the thread, when I said that if you had files on another server or SAN/NAS, that i/o can be costly in some configurations (not inherently so, but worth considering). But your reply was I've done a test already to eliminate the Network File Store by setting up a local copy on the server of the files and testing against that, and the results were the same. So as a matter of understanding what happened, do you know why at the time you got misled by that conclusion, which took us off the scent of that trail? Will just be interesting, forensically. Thanks. /charlie -Original Message- From: cfaussie@googlegroups.com [mailto:cfaus...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of BarryC Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 11:23 PM To: cfaussie Subject: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit Hi, After some more testing, thread dumps and operating system process monitoring, we have found that there seems to be a performance issue with files when accessed via NFS. The slow part is when file attributes are being requested for a file on the NFS (this was also shown in the thread dumps with the getBooleanAttributes() function coming up a lot). We have done a couple of tests with rather interesting results (we set up a specific test that loops over some directories and looks at the files in those directories, it does a fileExists(..) on each file in those directories); 1. test local file access time. 2. test file access time via share mounted via NFS path e.g. \\server \path\sharedfiles\ 3. test file access time via an iSCSI mounted drive (still over the network, but the operating system sees it as a lettered drive e.g. d: \sharedfiles\ The local file access time was very fast, for the 20 folders it did it in between 16ms and 50ms The FMS access time was very slow, about 3 seconds for the same 20 folders (I'd expect some delay over the network, but this seems rather a lot). The iSCSI mount was surprisingly fast at about 130ms (indicating that network latency time isn't really the issue?) We're a bit stumped, and the systems guys have had a look at options at the NFS end and there doesn't really seem to be much configuration they can do there. Kai, you mentioned that you run some of your servers with an NFS share, but have no problems, how is your share implemented, do you run it on Linux with the windows servers connecting to that? Regards Barry -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
[cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit
I've done some debugging on this now, and each request is checking for roughly 21 files to see if they exist (which they don't). The path exists, but the file doesn't. I did a test and found 21 fileexists(expandpath(..)) checks to different files that don't exist takes around 150ms, quite a bit for each page request, but not something I would have thought that would show up so frequently in the thread dumps. are there operating system file I/O limits? I've got no idea when it comes to operating system I/O level performance, if two requests check to see if a file exists at the same time, does one have to wait for the other to finish? Barry. On May 19, 3:38 pm, charlie arehart charlie_li...@carehart.org wrote: Hmmso, given that you've now told us that the line 424 that's always showing up is doing a filexists(expandpath()), doesn't it seem that this is at the root of the problem? Have you done some debugging to see what the path is that it's expanding? Maybe it's on some drive that's not giving a quick response? Maybe it's even on a network/UNC path or mapped drive, that involves some network I/O? /charlie -Original Message- From: cfaussie@googlegroups.com [mailto:cfaus...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of BarryC Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 10:25 PM To: cfaussie Subject: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit I measure the performance with a load test using 'Paessler web stress tool 7' and note the average time of requests over a certain period against a set of URL's. The pages i'm running at the moment all do a similar thing and are built pretty much the same way but with different content come from the database, so it's mostly repetitive work for the system. I have enabled the trusted cache and done some tests and there is certainly an improvement - mostly as the testing goes on and re-uses snip -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
RE: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit
Thanks for the update. I don't know the answer to your question, but I'll share a thought: you mention that you're load testing stuff. Is that perchance on a local development box? If so, is it perhaps some trial or lower-end version of Win2k8? I just ask because I know that in past Windows OS's, the lower-end versions did often have limits built-in, especially (as many will have noticed) the number of simultaneous IIS requests that are processed (others are queued). It may well be that there could in fact be some I/O-level restrictions on too many requests at once, which could be queued. That's a total guess and could be way off base. Also, you may well be running an Enterprise or other high-end version of Windows 2008. Just thought I'd ask, since you're raising the concern. Now, all that said, is this 150ms the sum of the delay that you've been concerned about? If so, then it would seem at least that you've found your root cause problem, right? That's at least a step in the right direction and allows you to focus solely on this one last mile. /charlie -Original Message- From: cfaussie@googlegroups.com [mailto:cfaus...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of BarryC Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 6:45 PM To: cfaussie Subject: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit I've done some debugging on this now, and each request is checking for roughly 21 files to see if they exist (which they don't). The path exists, but the file doesn't. I did a test and found 21 fileexists(expandpath(..)) checks to different files that don't exist takes around 150ms, quite a bit for each page request, but not something I would have thought that would show up so frequently in the thread dumps. are there operating system file I/O limits? I've got no idea when it comes to operating system I/O level performance, if two requests check to see if a file exists at the same time, does one have to wait for the other to finish? Barry. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
[cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit
Hi Charlie, It's not a development box, it's a production box , our soon-to-be production site (well one of them), so everything on it is essentially enterprise. I did increase the IIS threads limit (as pointed out by someone earlier on in this thread) so I don't know if it would be IIS or not. The only things remaining now in the thread dumps aside from queries are reading and writing of files to disk and not much else - I would have expected to see more code level stuff but there is still a decent portion of file I/O. I'll get our systems chaps to have a look at the system I/O performance and see if they can find anything. the 150ms I mentioned was from the sum of those 21 file exists , expand path checks. And yes it certainly must have been an issue because the performance has increased a lot - around 40 odd %. On May 20, 11:33 am, charlie arehart charlie_li...@carehart.org wrote: Thanks for the update. I don't know the answer to your question, but I'll share a thought: you mention that you're load testing stuff. Is that perchance on a local development box? If so, is it perhaps some trial or lower-end version of Win2k8? I just ask because I know that in past Windows OS's, the lower-end versions did often have limits built-in, especially (as many will have noticed) the number of simultaneous IIS requests that are processed (others are queued). It may well be that there could in fact be some I/O-level restrictions on too many requests at once, which could be queued. That's a total guess and could be way off base. Also, you may well be running an Enterprise or other high-end version of Windows 2008. Just thought I'd ask, since you're raising the concern. Now, all that said, is this 150ms the sum of the delay that you've been concerned about? If so, then it would seem at least that you've found your root cause problem, right? That's at least a step in the right direction and allows you to focus solely on this one last mile. /charlie -Original Message- From: cfaussie@googlegroups.com [mailto:cfaus...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of BarryC Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 6:45 PM To: cfaussie Subject: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit I've done some debugging on this now, and each request is checking for roughly 21 files to see if they exist (which they don't). The path exists, but the file doesn't. I did a test and found 21 fileexists(expandpath(..)) checks to different files that don't exist takes around 150ms, quite a bit for each page request, but not something I would have thought that would show up so frequently in the thread dumps. are there operating system file I/O limits? I've got no idea when it comes to operating system I/O level performance, if two requests check to see if a file exists at the same time, does one have to wait for the other to finish? Barry. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
Re: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit
Hi BarryC, I note from your thread dump that you are running BOTH FusionReactor and Adobe ColdFusion Server Monitoring. As you have the luxury of both, I would advise disabling the CF Monitoring. It just seems to cause problems. (Does any one else agree?) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
RE: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit
Well, Barry, this may all be too much to be trying to cover in an email, but here goes. One caution I'll offer is that you do want to be careful just taking a thread dump and trying to make use of it. First, you really need to compare two in a row, because it's showing what java methods were running in each thread at a moment in time. That's not useful. What matters is, at the next stack trace/thread dump, is it at the same method. And that's complicated as well by your never knowing, for sure, that a given thread is still running the very same template that it was in the last thread dump. Second, as readers will note, it makes for a HUGE email. The thread includes every thread in the entire Java environment, most of which do not concern us. You really just want the CF threads (typically jrpp-, for external web server requests, or web- for internal web server requests, or cfthread- for cfthread requests.) Third, even among all the available CF threads, only some are actually running at the time of your request for the thread dump, so one has to wade through them. A far more valuable thing to do is instead to view the hanging threads interactively within FusionReactor, since you have it installed (as I can tell from the thread dump). With FR, you can look at the running requests at any time and, on confirming that one's been running for a few seconds, you can click on it to get a stack trace only of that request. More important, you can then hit the refresh button (on the page) to refresh the stack trace to confirm if the request is indeed still handing on a given method (which shows later what line of CFML was responsible for the java code that's executing at that moment. That's where all this comes together: if you can see that a request is hung for an extended period of time at a given line of code, that's your smoking gun. (One gotcha when doing that sort of a refresh is that the request could have ended when you try to stack trace it a second time. Fortunately, FusionReactor will tell you that, whereas SeeFusion will instead just presume to show you whatever's running on that thread, whether it's the same or a newly running request, which could be very misleading.) Going back to your example, I noticed that at least 2 of those that were in a native method that was related to running CF code were either processing a CFINCLUDE or a CFINVOKE. And again, in each case they were checking the getlastmodifieddate. I'm betting that your problems would go away if you enabled trusted cache, so that CF didn't check this on every page request. (But to be clear, it wouldn't stop ALL such checks. If the template cache isn't large enough for the volume of templates loaded into it, then old ones will get flushed and new requests for files not in the cache would go through this process again.) More important, all this doesn't really solve the real root problem, where for some reason when it DOES need to do file access for the CFML source (to the SAN) it does take a long time. You'll need to study that. It could even be a networking issue between the CF server and the SAN device (I've seen the same happen with extended ping times between a CF server and the database server.) When such interactions happen possibly hundreds of times a second, even more than a dozen milliseconds of ping time can be disastrous. Hope that's helpful. For those interested in more on interpreting stack traces and thread dumps, I gave a talk on that very subject at this year's cf.objective. I may repeat it on the CFMeetup, but until then I do have the slides and some notes at my site, carehart.org/presentations. I'm also considering coming down to this year's cf.objective ANZ and could offer the session there, as well, and perhaps also a day-long pre-conference session on CF server troubleshooting. I'm sure Mark and the organizers would welcome hearing here if you thought this would be an interesting topic (from those of you with the fortitude to have read this far!) /charlie -Original Message- From: cfaussie@googlegroups.com [mailto:cfaus...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of BarryC Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 11:59 PM To: cfaussie Subject: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit Hi Charlie, Sandbox security is off (according to CF Administrator), but that's what I originally thought as well due to all the security.AccessController.doPriveleged calls. Unless there are other parameters at a config file level that are overriding the CF Admin options and invoking security related stuff? CF9 was installed from scratch. The trusted cache is off by default - we do not have that turned on. I've done a test already to eliminate the Network File Store by setting up a local copy on the server of the files and testing against that, and the results were the same. I'll take a look at the tool you suggested anyhow - thanks. Here is a thread dump
RE: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit
MrB, to your last question, I'll just add that I have often had (and worked with people who had) both running (even all three, adding SeeFusion), and I've never seen there to be any problem related to that (their all being enabled at once). I offer this as much for other readers as for this particular concern of Barry's. It helps to consider that both FR and SF are just servlet wrappers, which track requests coming into and going out of CF. They really don't add much overhead at all. They also each offer the JDBC wrapper feature, which again just tracks the requests going to and coming from the DB server, again low overheard. Admittedly, they both do some logging (FR to logs using log4j, and SF to a DB), but I've never seen those features to cause any major overhead-accept for the feature in FR which can provide the line number for every SQL statement. That feature can be disabled in the FR interface for really high volume JDBC activity, like hundreds per second. But to be clear, there's also nothing in FR or SF I can think of that would impact the issue that Barry's seeing, though I can certainly appreciate why one would think well, let's at least rule things out, so I'm not arguing against that. And as for the CF Server Monitor, I'd say the same (can't see how it would relate to his particular problem), but I'll add as well that that the CF Server monitor has aspects that are always on and can't be disabled. But it does have the 3 main features that can be enabled (and therefore disabled), in start monitoring, start profiling, and start memory tracking. Just to satisfy MrB's curiosity, Barry, can you tell us if you have any of them on? :-) /charlie From: cfaussie@googlegroups.com [mailto:cfaus...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of MrBuzzy Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 9:42 AM To: cfaussie@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit Hi BarryC, I note from your thread dump that you are running BOTH FusionReactor and Adobe ColdFusion Server Monitoring. As you have the luxury of both, I would advise disabling the CF Monitoring. It just seems to cause problems. (Does any one else agree?) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
[cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit
Thanks for the info, though it doesn't really put me much further ahead than I already was :) Yes fusion reactor is running, and I must have indeed had the coldfusion monitoring on, because when I went in to monitoring to check (after was mentioned by someone yesterday), it was turned on. I have since however turned off coldfusion monitoring, and at the end of yesterday uninstalled fusion reactor (as the license ran out, - i do have other servers with it on that I can use though). I have run subsequent thread dumps and the results are still the same (just without the calls to logging obviously) the performance of pages is still the same. As I mentioned previously Charlie, I had tried running my tests with a local copy of files on the server (to compare the difference between using the NFS and not using one), and the results were still the same - the thread dumps looked very similar. Sorry about the entire thread dump, I wasn't sure if the non running jrpp threads (or other threads) would give you any info or not :). I have indeed tried taking multiple thread dumps and comparing them, a few threads can be seen running in both, but I have not found any threads that ran stupidly long or any locking etc. What I have noticed though in most of the thread dumps (even when the same thread has been captured in two consecutive dumps) is that the thread is normally at a WinNTFileSystem call e.g. at java.io.WinNTFileSystem.getBooleanAttributes(Native Method) at java.io.File.exists(File.java:733) I'll try that trusted cache option you suggested Charlie. Thanks for the help. Regards Barry. On May 19, 5:49 am, charlie arehart charlie_li...@carehart.org wrote: MrB, to your last question, I'll just add that I have often had (and worked with people who had) both running (even all three, adding SeeFusion), and I've never seen there to be any problem related to that (their all being enabled at once). I offer this as much for other readers as for this particular concern of Barry's. It helps to consider that both FR and SF are just servlet wrappers, which track requests coming into and going out of CF. They really don't add much overhead at all. They also each offer the JDBC wrapper feature, which again just tracks the requests going to and coming from the DB server, again low overheard. Admittedly, they both do some logging (FR to logs using log4j, and SF to a DB), but I've never seen those features to cause any major overhead-accept for the feature in FR which can provide the line number for every SQL statement. That feature can be disabled in the FR interface for really high volume JDBC activity, like hundreds per second. But to be clear, there's also nothing in FR or SF I can think of that would impact the issue that Barry's seeing, though I can certainly appreciate why one would think well, let's at least rule things out, so I'm not arguing against that. And as for the CF Server Monitor, I'd say the same (can't see how it would relate to his particular problem), but I'll add as well that that the CF Server monitor has aspects that are always on and can't be disabled. But it does have the 3 main features that can be enabled (and therefore disabled), in start monitoring, start profiling, and start memory tracking. Just to satisfy MrB's curiosity, Barry, can you tell us if you have any of them on? :-) /charlie From: cfaussie@googlegroups.com [mailto:cfaus...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of MrBuzzy Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 9:42 AM To: cfaussie@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit Hi BarryC, I note from your thread dump that you are running BOTH FusionReactor and Adobe ColdFusion Server Monitoring. As you have the luxury of both, I would advise disabling the CF Monitoring. It just seems to cause problems. (Does any one else agree?) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
RE: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit
Sure, but to be clear, I was answering Mr B's question in that note rather than yours. I'm guessing your note here is a reply to both notes (mine to MrB and the earlier one to you, sent about 30 minutes earlier). To your points below, it's interesting to hear now that you're saying that using the local code rather than the NAS has not made any seeming difference. I've not really regarded that to be necessarily *the issue*, but it is very interesting to hear that it's had no impact at all. I am curious about that, before we go too much further: you say the performance of pages is still the same and the thread dumps looked very similar. So how are you measuring the performance? Is it just anecdotal (feels slow) or are you using some real measure, whether some of the stats shown in the CF Server Monitor, or (when you had FusionReactor) as what could be seen in its resource logs or System Overview page? I just ask because it may be interesting to confirm both that there's been no improvement and (possibly as useful) whether there are any particular pages or apps that are more troubled than others. I realize that may not seem likely, but this is a dilemma of looking only at thread dumps: you're only seeing what's *running at that moment*, as opposed to how things have gone in aggregate across all pages that did run (between the thread dumps). I'm just saying it could prove interesting, not that it would in your case. Moving on, rather than the NAS, I've asserted that the more interesting thing may be to see if you enabled trusted cache (since we see the stack traces showing the request doing the file system check--I pointed to some doing one method, you pointed to some doing another.) So I'm glad to hear that you will be checking that out. About that, I'll repeat, though: just turning it on may not still entirely solve the problem, if you have a problem where perhaps the template cache is not large enough for the files that are loaded, you could still have thrashing that could exhibit the same problem. Here's where the CF Server Monitor can help you. If you do enable trusted cache, and you do still see this problem occurring, then at that time, look in the CF Server Monitor at the Template Cache Status page (under StatisticsRequest Statistics) to see what the template cache hit ratio is at that time. As for FR's license running out, I assume you mean the trial period ended, right? I'll tell you, since it does such a great job to allow you to do stack traces interactively (and tell clearly when the request ends), it may be useful for you to move a license over for this testing (since you say that you have other licenses). Your call, of course. Finally, as for the CF Server Monitor, not that it's critical, but you don't clarify which of the 3 forms of CF monitoring you turned off, but I'll assume perhaps it was start monitoring (it's just that you use the term went into monitoring to check..[and]...it was turned on.) I'm just trying to get people to be more specific when they refer to the CF Server Monitor. Hope these or thoughts of others as they get going in their day there may help get you further. (I'm still not inclined to believe that this is somehow related to Windows itself, though I realize that was the first assertion made.) Looking forward to hearing what the resolution ultimately is. /charlie -Original Message- From: cfaussie@googlegroups.com [mailto:cfaus...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of BarryC Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 5:10 PM To: cfaussie Subject: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit Thanks for the info, though it doesn't really put me much further ahead than I already was :) Yes fusion reactor is running, and I must have indeed had the coldfusion monitoring on, because when I went in to monitoring to check (after was mentioned by someone yesterday), it was turned on. I have since however turned off coldfusion monitoring, and at the end of yesterday uninstalled fusion reactor (as the license ran out, - i do have other servers with it on that I can use though). I have run subsequent thread dumps and the results are still the same (just without the calls to logging obviously) the performance of pages is still the same. As I mentioned previously Charlie, I had tried running my tests with a local copy of files on the server (to compare the difference between using the NFS and not using one), and the results were still the same - the thread dumps looked very similar. Sorry about the entire thread dump, I wasn't sure if the non running jrpp threads (or other threads) would give you any info or not :). I have indeed tried taking multiple thread dumps and comparing them, a few threads can be seen running in both, but I have not found any threads that ran stupidly long or any locking etc. What I have noticed though in most of the thread dumps (even when the same thread has been captured
[cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit
further: you say the performance of pages is still the same and the thread dumps looked very similar. So how are you measuring the performance? Is it just anecdotal (feels slow) or are you using some real measure, whether some of the stats shown in the CF Server Monitor, or (when you had FusionReactor) as what could be seen in its resource logs or System Overview page? I just ask because it may be interesting to confirm both that there's been no improvement and (possibly as useful) whether there are any particular pages or apps that are more troubled than others. I realize that may not seem likely, but this is a dilemma of looking only at thread dumps: you're only seeing what's *running at that moment*, as opposed to how things have gone in aggregate across all pages that did run (between the thread dumps). I'm just saying it could prove interesting, not that it would in your case. Moving on, rather than the NAS, I've asserted that the more interesting thing may be to see if you enabled trusted cache (since we see the stack traces showing the request doing the file system check--I pointed to some doing one method, you pointed to some doing another.) So I'm glad to hear that you will be checking that out. About that, I'll repeat, though: just turning it on may not still entirely solve the problem, if you have a problem where perhaps the template cache is not large enough for the files that are loaded, you could still have thrashing that could exhibit the same problem. Here's where the CF Server Monitor can help you. If you do enable trusted cache, and you do still see this problem occurring, then at that time, look in the CF Server Monitor at the Template Cache Status page (under StatisticsRequest Statistics) to see what the template cache hit ratio is at that time. As for FR's license running out, I assume you mean the trial period ended, right? I'll tell you, since it does such a great job to allow you to do stack traces interactively (and tell clearly when the request ends), it may be useful for you to move a license over for this testing (since you say that you have other licenses). Your call, of course. Finally, as for the CF Server Monitor, not that it's critical, but you don't clarify which of the 3 forms of CF monitoring you turned off, but I'll assume perhaps it was start monitoring (it's just that you use the term went into monitoring to check..[and]...it was turned on.) I'm just trying to get people to be more specific when they refer to the CF Server Monitor. Hope these or thoughts of others as they get going in their day there may help get you further. (I'm still not inclined to believe that this is somehow related to Windows itself, though I realize that was the first assertion made.) Looking forward to hearing what the resolution ultimately is. /charlie -Original Message- From: cfaussie@googlegroups.com [mailto:cfaus...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of BarryC Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 5:10 PM To: cfaussie Subject: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit Thanks for the info, though it doesn't really put me much further ahead than I already was :) Yes fusion reactor is running, and I must have indeed had the coldfusion monitoring on, because when I went in to monitoring to check (after was mentioned by someone yesterday), it was turned on. I have since however turned off coldfusion monitoring, and at the end of yesterday uninstalled fusion reactor (as the license ran out, - i do have other servers with it on that I can use though). I have run subsequent thread dumps and the results are still the same (just without the calls to logging obviously) the performance of pages is still the same. As I mentioned previously Charlie, I had tried running my tests with a local copy of files on the server (to compare the difference between using the NFS and not using one), and the results were still the same - the thread dumps looked very similar. Sorry about the entire thread dump, I wasn't sure if the non running jrpp threads (or other threads) would give you any info or not :). I have indeed tried taking multiple thread dumps and comparing them, a few threads can be seen running in both, but I have not found any threads that ran stupidly long or any locking etc. What I have noticed though in most of the thread dumps (even when the same thread has been captured in two consecutive dumps) is that the thread is normally at a WinNTFileSystem call e.g. at java.io.WinNTFileSystem.getBooleanAttributes(Native Method) at java.io.File.exists(File.java:733) I'll try that trusted cache option you suggested Charlie. Thanks for the help. Regards Barry. On May 19, 5:49 am, charlie arehart charlie_li...@carehart.org wrote: MrB, to your last question, I'll just add that I have often had (and worked
RE: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit
Hmmso, given that you've now told us that the line 424 that's always showing up is doing a filexists(expandpath()), doesn't it seem that this is at the root of the problem? Have you done some debugging to see what the path is that it's expanding? Maybe it's on some drive that's not giving a quick response? Maybe it's even on a network/UNC path or mapped drive, that involves some network I/O? /charlie -Original Message- From: cfaussie@googlegroups.com [mailto:cfaus...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of BarryC Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 10:25 PM To: cfaussie Subject: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit I measure the performance with a load test using 'Paessler web stress tool 7' and note the average time of requests over a certain period against a set of URL's. The pages i'm running at the moment all do a similar thing and are built pretty much the same way but with different content come from the database, so it's mostly repetitive work for the system. I have enabled the trusted cache and done some tests and there is certainly an improvement - mostly as the testing goes on and re-uses snip -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
Re: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit
Hmm what are these 'requirements' you speak of? On 17 May 2010 15:57, Kai Koenig k...@koeni.de wrote: I would not in general blame 64bit CF - seriously. There are huge installations out there just running fine on it and I know a few of them really well. What you will find though with 64bit CF is that is has quite different requirements for setting up the JVM, assigning memory to it etc. Cheers Kai -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
RE: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit
Why is that though Kai? I meanyou don't by a car and then have to take it to a mechanic for them to tune it so it runs properly (most of the time). The installer knows what platform you are installing and comes pre-packaged with a JVM so why is it so difficult to have the JVM conf set up out of the box to run at its optimum? In my opinon, when you install the cf server and are running it out of the box you shouldn't need to configure anything with the JVM. Why pay all that money for a license to have to then configure it properly yourself? -Original Message- From: Kai Koenig [mailto:k...@koeni.de] Sent: Monday, 17 May 2010 3:57 PM To: cfaussie@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit I would not in general blame 64bit CF - seriously. There are huge installations out there just running fine on it and I know a few of them really well. What you will find though with 64bit CF is that is has quite different requirements for setting up the JVM, assigning memory to it etc. Cheers Kai To be honest I think it's the 64bit CF server. I had lots of issues with cf writing file such as cfmail files and doing heavy db access processes like loops, issues that I never had with the 32 bit platform. I had some real bad memory consumption issues also, so bad the cf server was becoming unresponsive and the only way to correct it was to resrart the cf service. I have recently migrated some sites back to the 32 bit platform and not having any issues on it. That said, when I first had my 64bit windows os, it was when cf8 initially came out and I was running the 32bit cf server on the 64bit OS and I didn't have any problems. It was only when I upgraded to the 64bit cf server that I started having issues. -Original Message- From: BarryC [mailto:barrychester...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, 17 May 2010 11:29 AM To: cfaussie Subject: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit The thread dumps are showing a lot of wait points at native methods, there are a lot of waits for TCP responses (some database as to be expected, but most just loading cfm/cfc files and the occasional writing of files). We are running with a network file share which houses all the files (as we are running a clustered setup), we're going to do a test with the files hosted locally on a server shortly, but everything is pointing to the OS or the Network File Share as being problematic - it could be the OS itself though, that's why I'm wondering if there's something I don't know about server 2008 that might be an issue. Do tell about your experience with CF8 on 64 bit OS :) On May 17, 1:01 pm, Steve Onnis st...@cfcentral.com.au wrote: What are the issues? Going from my experience with CF8 on the 64 bit OS I wont be running CF on 64bit windows OS anymore -Original Message- From: BarryC [mailto:barrychester...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, 17 May 2010 11:00 AM To: cfaussie Subject: [cfaussie] Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit Hi, Does anyone on here run coldfusion 9 on windows server 2008, 64 bit? We are running in to some performance issues which seem to be at an OS level and I'm wondering if anyone else has used this configuration with success. Thanks Barry Chesterman -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- Kai Koenig - Ventego Creative Ltd ph: +64 4 476 6781 - mob: +64 21 928 365 / +61 450 132 117 web: http://www.ventego-creative.co.nz blog: http://www.bloginblack.de twitter: http://www.twitter.com/agentK Hands-on Regular Expression training @ webDU 2010 http://bloginblack.de/agentk/workshop
Re: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit
Among others that you might all of a sudden deal with a larger heap, different ratios between generations etc. Cheers Kai Hmm what are these 'requirements' you speak of? On 17 May 2010 15:57, Kai Koenig k...@koeni.de wrote: I would not in general blame 64bit CF - seriously. There are huge installations out there just running fine on it and I know a few of them really well. What you will find though with 64bit CF is that is has quite different requirements for setting up the JVM, assigning memory to it etc. Cheers Kai -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- Kai Koenig - Ventego Creative Ltd ph: +64 4 476 6781 - mob: +64 21 928 365 / +61 450 132 117 web: http://www.ventego-creative.co.nz blog: http://www.bloginblack.de twitter: http://www.twitter.com/agentK Hands-on Regular Expression training @ webDU 2010 http://bloginblack.de/agentk/workshop-befriending-regular-expressions/ Hands-on Flash Catalyst and Flex 4 training @ Webinale 2010 http://bloginblack.de/agentk/workshop-rias-with-flash-catalyst-and-flex-4/ -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
RE: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit
So with that sort of thingis more better? like is a parger heap better than a smaller heap? _ From: Kai Koenig [mailto:k...@koeni.de] Sent: Monday, 17 May 2010 7:11 PM To: cfaussie@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit Among others that you might all of a sudden deal with a larger heap, different ratios between generations etc. Cheers Kai Hmm what are these 'requirements' you speak of? On 17 May 2010 15:57, Kai Koenig k...@koeni.de wrote: I would not in general blame 64bit CF - seriously. There are huge installations out there just running fine on it and I know a few of them really well. What you will find though with 64bit CF is that is has quite different requirements for setting up the JVM, assigning memory to it etc. Cheers Kai -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- Kai Koenig - Ventego Creative Ltd ph: +64 4 476 6781 - mob: +64 21 928 365 / +61 450 132 117 web: http://www.ventego-creative.co.nz blog: http://www.bloginblack.de twitter: http://www.twitter.com/agentK Hands-on Regular Expression training @ webDU 2010 http://bloginblack.de/agentk/workshop-befriending-regular-expressions/ Hands-on Flash Catalyst and Flex 4 training @ Webinale 2010 http://bloginblack.de/agentk/workshop-rias-with-flash-catalyst-and-flex-4/ -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
Re: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit
Generally speaking (and not specifically about this problem) - the JVM under the hood of CF is not badly or poorly configured. It IS configured though to cover for the most common/average scenarios. That being said - a proper configuration for any given CF server always has to take the hardware configuration as well as the type of applications running on the machine into consideration; also load and usage patterns of the application. It IS difficult - actually impossible - to setup a JVM to its optimum without knowing how it's being used. Sun/Oracle was and are trying to get to the point of a self-optimising JVM and internal automatic tuning of Garbage Collection, but that just works up to a certain extent. On your question: Why pay all that money for a license to have to then configure it properly yourself? I'm repeating myself, but the answer is that you're not paying for JVM or for a configuration magician. You pay for a web application server engine that makes development easy and rapid. It doesn't matter if you spend 10 times the amount of a CF license and buy an IBM Websphere or Oracle Weblogic license or get a free Tomcat engine - it's the same problem. Running any type of Java application requires tuning if you want to get the maximum of performance for your given situation. Honestly - I think Adobe should make that point much more clear. Way too many people run the CF server with out of the box default settings and then run into performance issues. that doesn't just apply to JVM settings, but also CF server settings in general. Just to make that clear - this discussion is just a spin-off of the original problem that Barry had. Cheers Kai On 17/05/2010, at 9:04 PM, Steve Onnis wrote: Why is that though Kai? I meanyou don't by a car and then have to take it to a mechanic for them to tune it so it runs properly (most of the time). The installer knows what platform you are installing and comes pre-packaged with a JVM so why is it so difficult to have the JVM conf set up out of the box to run at its optimum? In my opinon, when you install the cf server and are running it out of the box you shouldn't need to configure anything with the JVM. Why pay all that money for a license to have to then configure it properly yourself? -Original Message- From: Kai Koenig [mailto:k...@koeni.de] Sent: Monday, 17 May 2010 3:57 PM To: cfaussie@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit I would not in general blame 64bit CF - seriously. There are huge installations out there just running fine on it and I know a few of them really well. What you will find though with 64bit CF is that is has quite different requirements for setting up the JVM, assigning memory to it etc. Cheers Kai To be honest I think it's the 64bit CF server. I had lots of issues with cf writing file such as cfmail files and doing heavy db access processes like loops, issues that I never had with the 32 bit platform. I had some real bad memory consumption issues also, so bad the cf server was becoming unresponsive and the only way to correct it was to resrart the cf service. I have recently migrated some sites back to the 32 bit platform and not having any issues on it. That said, when I first had my 64bit windows os, it was when cf8 initially came out and I was running the 32bit cf server on the 64bit OS and I didn't have any problems. It was only when I upgraded to the 64bit cf server that I started having issues. -Original Message- From: BarryC [mailto:barrychester...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, 17 May 2010 11:29 AM To: cfaussie Subject: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit The thread dumps are showing a lot of wait points at native methods, there are a lot of waits for TCP responses (some database as to be expected, but most just loading cfm/cfc files and the occasional writing of files). We are running with a network file share which houses all the files (as we are running a clustered setup), we're going to do a test with the files hosted locally on a server shortly, but everything is pointing to the OS or the Network File Share as being problematic - it could be the OS itself though, that's why I'm wondering if there's something I don't know about server 2008 that might be an issue. Do tell about your experience with CF8 on 64 bit OS :) On May 17, 1:01 pm, Steve Onnis st...@cfcentral.com.au wrote: What are the issues? Going from my experience with CF8 on the 64 bit OS I wont be running CF on 64bit windows OS anymore -Original Message- From: BarryC [mailto:barrychester...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, 17 May 2010 11:00 AM To: cfaussie Subject: [cfaussie] Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit Hi, Does anyone on here run coldfusion 9 on windows server 2008, 64 bit? We are running in to some performance issues which seem
Re: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit
It depends. Sorry. On applications, load etc. Load testing is the ONLY way to find that out. large heap - more fragmentation, potentially longer but less often garbage collection, but more available memory for the CF box. small heap - less fragmentation, potentially shorter but more often garbage collection, but less available memory for the CF box. As a rule of thumb - the larger your heap is, the more thought you need to put into how to configure the JVM imho, i.e. how to split up the heap into generations etc. I've seen machines with 8 GB RAM and a 6 GB JVM heap and they behaved completely different with the same applications but different inner-generational memory settings. Kai So with that sort of thingis more better? like is a parger heap better than a smaller heap? From: Kai Koenig [mailto:k...@koeni.de] Sent: Monday, 17 May 2010 7:11 PM To: cfaussie@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit Among others that you might all of a sudden deal with a larger heap, different ratios between generations etc. Cheers Kai Hmm what are these 'requirements' you speak of? On 17 May 2010 15:57, Kai Koenig k...@koeni.de wrote: I would not in general blame 64bit CF - seriously. There are huge installations out there just running fine on it and I know a few of them really well. What you will find though with 64bit CF is that is has quite different requirements for setting up the JVM, assigning memory to it etc. Cheers Kai -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- Kai Koenig - Ventego Creative Ltd ph: +64 4 476 6781 - mob: +64 21 928 365 / +61 450 132 117 web: http://www.ventego-creative.co.nz blog: http://www.bloginblack.de twitter: http://www.twitter.com/agentK Hands-on Regular Expression training @ webDU 2010 http://bloginblack.de/agentk/workshop-befriending-regular-expressions/ Hands-on Flash Catalyst and Flex 4 training @ Webinale 2010 http://bloginblack.de/agentk/workshop-rias-with-flash-catalyst-and-flex-4/ -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- Kai Koenig - Ventego Creative Ltd ph: +64 4 476 6781 - mob: +64 21 928 365 / +61 450 132 117 web: http://www.ventego-creative.co.nz blog: http://www.bloginblack.de twitter: http://www.twitter.com/agentK Hands-on Regular Expression training @ webDU 2010 http://bloginblack.de/agentk/workshop-befriending-regular-expressions/ Hands-on Flash Catalyst and Flex 4 training @ Webinale 2010 http://bloginblack.de/agentk/workshop-rias-with-flash-catalyst-and-flex-4/ -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
[cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit
Hi Kym or Kai, or anyone with a successfully working CF9 64bit install... What is the JRE version that is actually on the server? the one we are using is 1.6.0_14 Also, some info, the kind of things showing in the thread dumps a lot are native methods like these: java.lang.Thread.State: RUNNABLE at java.io.WinNTFileSystem.getBooleanAttributes(Native Method) at java.io.File.exists(File.java:733) at coldfusion.runtime.RuntimeServiceImpl $1.run(RuntimeServiceImpl.java:904) at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method) at coldfusion.runtime.RuntimeServiceImpl.checkFileExists(RuntimeServiceImpl.java: 900) at coldfusion.runtime.RuntimeServiceImpl.getRealPath(RuntimeServiceImpl.java: 952) at coldfusion.filter.FusionContext.getRealPath(FusionContext.java: 758) at coldfusion.util.Utils.expandPath(Utils.java:434) at coldfusion.runtime.CFPage.ExpandPath(CFPage.java:3028) java.lang.Thread.State: RUNNABLE at java.io.WinNTFileSystem.getBooleanAttributes(Native Method) at java.io.File.isDirectory(File.java:754) at coldfusion.runtime.CFPage.DirectoryExists(CFPage.java:2959) java.lang.Thread.State: RUNNABLE at java.io.WinNTFileSystem.getLastModifiedTime(Native Method) at java.io.File.lastModified(File.java:826) at coldfusion.compiler.NeoTranslator.getLastModifiedTime(NeoTranslator.java: 940) at coldfusion.runtime.TemplateClassLoader.getLastModifiedTime(TemplateClassLoader.java: 297) at coldfusion.runtime.TemplateProxy.getRuntimeComponentMetadata(TemplateProxy.java: 1751) at coldfusion.runtime.TemplateProxy.getRuntimeMetadata(TemplateProxy.java: 1616) Barry. On May 17, 9:28 pm, Kai Koenig k...@koeni.de wrote: It depends. Sorry. On applications, load etc. Load testing is the ONLY way to find that out. large heap - more fragmentation, potentially longer but less often garbage collection, but more available memory for the CF box. small heap - less fragmentation, potentially shorter but more often garbage collection, but less available memory for the CF box. As a rule of thumb - the larger your heap is, the more thought you need to put into how to configure the JVM imho, i.e. how to split up the heap into generations etc. I've seen machines with 8 GB RAM and a 6 GB JVM heap and they behaved completely different with the same applications but different inner-generational memory settings. Kai So with that sort of thingis more better? like is a parger heap better than a smaller heap? From: Kai Koenig [mailto:k...@koeni.de] Sent: Monday, 17 May 2010 7:11 PM To: cfaussie@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit Among others that you might all of a sudden deal with a larger heap, different ratios between generations etc. Cheers Kai Hmm what are these 'requirements' you speak of? On 17 May 2010 15:57, Kai Koenig k...@koeni.de wrote: I would not in general blame 64bit CF - seriously. There are huge installations out there just running fine on it and I know a few of them really well. What you will find though with 64bit CF is that is has quite different requirements for setting up the JVM, assigning memory to it etc. Cheers Kai -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- Kai Koenig - Ventego Creative Ltd ph: +64 4 476 6781 - mob: +64 21 928 365 / +61 450 132 117 web:http://www.ventego-creative.co.nz blog:http://www.bloginblack.de twitter:http://www.twitter.com/agentK Hands-on Regular Expression training @ webDU 2010 http://bloginblack.de/agentk/workshop-befriending-regular-expressions/ Hands-on Flash Catalyst and Flex 4 training @ Webinale 2010 http://bloginblack.de/agentk/workshop-rias-with-flash-catalyst-and-fl... -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- Kai Koenig - Ventego Creative Ltd ph: +64 4 476 6781 - mob: +64 21 928 365 / +61 450 132 117 web:http://www.ventego-creative.co.nz blog:http://www.bloginblack.de twitter:http
Re: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit
On 18/05/2010 09:40, BarryC wrote: Hi Kym or Kai, or anyone with a successfully working CF9 64bit install... What is the JRE version that is actually on the server? the one we are using is 1.6.0_14 Same here. Also, some info, the kind of things showing in the thread dumps a lot are native methods like these: At a quick glance that looks like a failed search for a file with a funny opr two in the middle, do you have server monitoring turned on? java.lang.Thread.State: RUNNABLE at java.io.WinNTFileSystem.getBooleanAttributes(Native Method) at java.io.File.exists(File.java:733) at coldfusion.runtime.RuntimeServiceImpl $1.run(RuntimeServiceImpl.java:904) at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method) at coldfusion.runtime.RuntimeServiceImpl.checkFileExists(RuntimeServiceImpl.java: 900) at coldfusion.runtime.RuntimeServiceImpl.getRealPath(RuntimeServiceImpl.java: 952) at coldfusion.filter.FusionContext.getRealPath(FusionContext.java: 758) at coldfusion.util.Utils.expandPath(Utils.java:434) at coldfusion.runtime.CFPage.ExpandPath(CFPage.java:3028) java.lang.Thread.State: RUNNABLE at java.io.WinNTFileSystem.getBooleanAttributes(Native Method) at java.io.File.isDirectory(File.java:754) at coldfusion.runtime.CFPage.DirectoryExists(CFPage.java:2959) java.lang.Thread.State: RUNNABLE at java.io.WinNTFileSystem.getLastModifiedTime(Native Method) at java.io.File.lastModified(File.java:826) at coldfusion.compiler.NeoTranslator.getLastModifiedTime(NeoTranslator.java: 940) at coldfusion.runtime.TemplateClassLoader.getLastModifiedTime(TemplateClassLoader.java: 297) at coldfusion.runtime.TemplateProxy.getRuntimeComponentMetadata(TemplateProxy.java: 1751) at coldfusion.runtime.TemplateProxy.getRuntimeMetadata(TemplateProxy.java: 1616) Barry. -- Yours, Kym Kovan mbcomms.net.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
Re: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit
We're on a more recent JVM as far as I can remember. I _think_ the _16 - but I wouldn't bet on that atm without looking at the machines. Cheers Kai Hi Kym or Kai, or anyone with a successfully working CF9 64bit install... What is the JRE version that is actually on the server? the one we are using is 1.6.0_14 Also, some info, the kind of things showing in the thread dumps a lot are native methods like these: java.lang.Thread.State: RUNNABLE at java.io.WinNTFileSystem.getBooleanAttributes(Native Method) at java.io.File.exists(File.java:733) at coldfusion.runtime.RuntimeServiceImpl $1.run(RuntimeServiceImpl.java:904) at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method) at coldfusion.runtime.RuntimeServiceImpl.checkFileExists(RuntimeServiceImpl.java: 900) at coldfusion.runtime.RuntimeServiceImpl.getRealPath(RuntimeServiceImpl.java: 952) at coldfusion.filter.FusionContext.getRealPath(FusionContext.java: 758) at coldfusion.util.Utils.expandPath(Utils.java:434) at coldfusion.runtime.CFPage.ExpandPath(CFPage.java:3028) java.lang.Thread.State: RUNNABLE at java.io.WinNTFileSystem.getBooleanAttributes(Native Method) at java.io.File.isDirectory(File.java:754) at coldfusion.runtime.CFPage.DirectoryExists(CFPage.java:2959) java.lang.Thread.State: RUNNABLE at java.io.WinNTFileSystem.getLastModifiedTime(Native Method) at java.io.File.lastModified(File.java:826) at coldfusion.compiler.NeoTranslator.getLastModifiedTime(NeoTranslator.java: 940) at coldfusion.runtime.TemplateClassLoader.getLastModifiedTime(TemplateClassLoader.java: 297) at coldfusion.runtime.TemplateProxy.getRuntimeComponentMetadata(TemplateProxy.java: 1751) at coldfusion.runtime.TemplateProxy.getRuntimeMetadata(TemplateProxy.java: 1616) Barry. On May 17, 9:28 pm, Kai Koenig k...@koeni.de wrote: It depends. Sorry. On applications, load etc. Load testing is the ONLY way to find that out. large heap - more fragmentation, potentially longer but less often garbage collection, but more available memory for the CF box. small heap - less fragmentation, potentially shorter but more often garbage collection, but less available memory for the CF box. As a rule of thumb - the larger your heap is, the more thought you need to put into how to configure the JVM imho, i.e. how to split up the heap into generations etc. I've seen machines with 8 GB RAM and a 6 GB JVM heap and they behaved completely different with the same applications but different inner-generational memory settings. Kai So with that sort of thingis more better? like is a parger heap better than a smaller heap? From: Kai Koenig [mailto:k...@koeni.de] Sent: Monday, 17 May 2010 7:11 PM To: cfaussie@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit Among others that you might all of a sudden deal with a larger heap, different ratios between generations etc. Cheers Kai Hmm what are these 'requirements' you speak of? On 17 May 2010 15:57, Kai Koenig k...@koeni.de wrote: I would not in general blame 64bit CF - seriously. There are huge installations out there just running fine on it and I know a few of them really well. What you will find though with 64bit CF is that is has quite different requirements for setting up the JVM, assigning memory to it etc. Cheers Kai -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- Kai Koenig - Ventego Creative Ltd ph: +64 4 476 6781 - mob: +64 21 928 365 / +61 450 132 117 web:http://www.ventego-creative.co.nz blog:http://www.bloginblack.de twitter:http://www.twitter.com/agentK Hands-on Regular Expression training @ webDU 2010 http://bloginblack.de/agentk/workshop-befriending-regular-expressions/ Hands-on Flash Catalyst and Flex 4 training @ Webinale 2010 http://bloginblack.de/agentk/workshop-rias-with-flash-catalyst-and-fl... -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- Kai Koenig - Ventego
Re: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit
It's not a file permission issue is it? They have tripped me up a number of times on unix/linux servers. I am not sure about Windows but I would be checking it has read permissions. On Tue, 18 May 2010 10:11:07 +1000, Kym Kovan dev-li...@mbcomms.net.au wrote: On 18/05/2010 09:40, BarryC wrote: Hi Kym or Kai, or anyone with a successfully working CF9 64bit install... What is the JRE version that is actually on the server? the one we are using is 1.6.0_14 Same here. Also, some info, the kind of things showing in the thread dumps a lot are native methods like these: At a quick glance that looks like a failed search for a file with a funny opr two in the middle, do you have server monitoring turned on? java.lang.Thread.State: RUNNABLE at java.io.WinNTFileSystem.getBooleanAttributes(Native Method) at java.io.File.exists(File.java:733) at coldfusion.runtime.RuntimeServiceImpl $1.run(RuntimeServiceImpl.java:904) at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method) at coldfusion.runtime.RuntimeServiceImpl.checkFileExists(RuntimeServiceImpl.java: 900) at coldfusion.runtime.RuntimeServiceImpl.getRealPath(RuntimeServiceImpl.java: 952) at coldfusion.filter.FusionContext.getRealPath(FusionContext.java: 758) at coldfusion.util.Utils.expandPath(Utils.java:434) at coldfusion.runtime.CFPage.ExpandPath(CFPage.java:3028) java.lang.Thread.State: RUNNABLE at java.io.WinNTFileSystem.getBooleanAttributes(Native Method) at java.io.File.isDirectory(File.java:754) at coldfusion.runtime.CFPage.DirectoryExists(CFPage.java:2959) java.lang.Thread.State: RUNNABLE at java.io.WinNTFileSystem.getLastModifiedTime(Native Method) at java.io.File.lastModified(File.java:826) at coldfusion.compiler.NeoTranslator.getLastModifiedTime(NeoTranslator.java: 940) at coldfusion.runtime.TemplateClassLoader.getLastModifiedTime(TemplateClassLoader.java: 297) at coldfusion.runtime.TemplateProxy.getRuntimeComponentMetadata(TemplateProxy.java: 1751) at coldfusion.runtime.TemplateProxy.getRuntimeMetadata(TemplateProxy.java: 1616) Barry. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
[cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit
I have ensured logging is not on, I'm not 100% sure if it was on or off, but my subsequent tests are all the same response times. What do you mean by a file with a funny opr two in the middle? Barry On May 18, 12:11 pm, Kym Kovan dev-li...@mbcomms.net.au wrote: On 18/05/2010 09:40, BarryC wrote: Hi Kym or Kai, or anyone with a successfully working CF9 64bit install... What is the JRE version that is actually on the server? the one we are using is 1.6.0_14 Same here. Also, some info, the kind of things showing in the thread dumps a lot are native methods like these: At a quick glance that looks like a failed search for a file with a funny opr two in the middle, do you have server monitoring turned on? java.lang.Thread.State: RUNNABLE at java.io.WinNTFileSystem.getBooleanAttributes(Native Method) at java.io.File.exists(File.java:733) at coldfusion.runtime.RuntimeServiceImpl $1.run(RuntimeServiceImpl.java:904) at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method) at coldfusion.runtime.RuntimeServiceImpl.checkFileExists(RuntimeServiceImpl.java: 900) at coldfusion.runtime.RuntimeServiceImpl.getRealPath(RuntimeServiceImpl.java: 952) at coldfusion.filter.FusionContext.getRealPath(FusionContext.java: 758) at coldfusion.util.Utils.expandPath(Utils.java:434) at coldfusion.runtime.CFPage.ExpandPath(CFPage.java:3028) java.lang.Thread.State: RUNNABLE at java.io.WinNTFileSystem.getBooleanAttributes(Native Method) at java.io.File.isDirectory(File.java:754) at coldfusion.runtime.CFPage.DirectoryExists(CFPage.java:2959) java.lang.Thread.State: RUNNABLE at java.io.WinNTFileSystem.getLastModifiedTime(Native Method) at java.io.File.lastModified(File.java:826) at coldfusion.compiler.NeoTranslator.getLastModifiedTime(NeoTranslator.java: 940) at coldfusion.runtime.TemplateClassLoader.getLastModifiedTime(TemplateClassLoader.java: 297) at coldfusion.runtime.TemplateProxy.getRuntimeComponentMetadata(TemplateProxy.java: 1751) at coldfusion.runtime.TemplateProxy.getRuntimeMetadata(TemplateProxy.java: 1616) Barry. -- Yours, Kym Kovan mbcomms.net.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
[cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit
It is unix based as the files are all on a network file share. Access for that is based on machine name and so the server essentially gets full access to it, but that's not to say it isn't a file permission problem. It's definitely reading and writing files from it though. On May 18, 12:23 pm, Andrew Myers am2...@gmail.com wrote: It's not a file permission issue is it? They have tripped me up a number of times on unix/linux servers. I am not sure about Windows but I would be checking it has read permissions. On Tue, 18 May 2010 10:11:07 +1000, Kym Kovan dev-li...@mbcomms.net.au wrote: On 18/05/2010 09:40, BarryC wrote: Hi Kym or Kai, or anyone with a successfully working CF9 64bit install... What is the JRE version that is actually on the server? the one we are using is 1.6.0_14 Same here. Also, some info, the kind of things showing in the thread dumps a lot are native methods like these: At a quick glance that looks like a failed search for a file with a funny opr two in the middle, do you have server monitoring turned on? java.lang.Thread.State: RUNNABLE at java.io.WinNTFileSystem.getBooleanAttributes(Native Method) at java.io.File.exists(File.java:733) at coldfusion.runtime.RuntimeServiceImpl $1.run(RuntimeServiceImpl.java:904) at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method) at coldfusion.runtime.RuntimeServiceImpl.checkFileExists(RuntimeServiceImpl.java: 900) at coldfusion.runtime.RuntimeServiceImpl.getRealPath(RuntimeServiceImpl.java: 952) at coldfusion.filter.FusionContext.getRealPath(FusionContext.java: 758) at coldfusion.util.Utils.expandPath(Utils.java:434) at coldfusion.runtime.CFPage.ExpandPath(CFPage.java:3028) java.lang.Thread.State: RUNNABLE at java.io.WinNTFileSystem.getBooleanAttributes(Native Method) at java.io.File.isDirectory(File.java:754) at coldfusion.runtime.CFPage.DirectoryExists(CFPage.java:2959) java.lang.Thread.State: RUNNABLE at java.io.WinNTFileSystem.getLastModifiedTime(Native Method) at java.io.File.lastModified(File.java:826) at coldfusion.compiler.NeoTranslator.getLastModifiedTime(NeoTranslator.java: 940) at coldfusion.runtime.TemplateClassLoader.getLastModifiedTime(TemplateClassLoader.java: 297) at coldfusion.runtime.TemplateProxy.getRuntimeComponentMetadata(TemplateProxy.java: 1751) at coldfusion.runtime.TemplateProxy.getRuntimeMetadata(TemplateProxy.java: 1616) Barry. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
Re: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit
On 18/05/2010 10:35, BarryC wrote: I have ensured logging is not on, I'm not 100% sure if it was on or off, but my subsequent tests are all the same response times. What do you mean by a file with a funny or two in the middle? I was looking at this one, and misread it :-) at coldfusion.filter.FusionContext.getRealPath(FusionContext.java: 758) Certainly that trace is a check to get the attributes of a file so it should be calling native methods, a fair chunk of that stack is at the java and OS level. What is the concern, that native methods were being called at all or what? -- Yours, Kym Kovan mbcomms.net.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
RE: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit
Barry, I have a few thoughts for you, if it remains unresolved. First, I notice that your stack trace has this near the top: java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged That makes me wonder, and it's just a guess: do you have Sandbox or Resource Security enabled in CF? The former is the name in Enterprise, and the latter is the name in Standard. Either of those would have CF checking to ensure that a given file was appropriate to be requested by CF. This would *NOT* be something inherently new in CF9. It's a feature that goes back to CF 6 (and has roots in something added in CF4). Whether you installed CF9 from scratch or did an upgrade, there would be no new implementation of Sandbox/Resource security. Now, it could be that you had it enabled for the previous server, and it pointed to things that were correct for that, but in the new server somehow the configuration is no longer correct. Again, this is all a guess. See the 'Security section of the CF Admin to check on that. Second, if that's not it, I would recommend that you could help us help you better by providing a complete stack trace for one of your requests that are hanging in the native method state, because somewhere it may show reference either to a line of code that's the root of your problem, or it may show something else that could be significant. Third, here's another guess: did you perhaps have the CF Admin trusted cache feature enabled in the old configuration, and perhaps in the new one you maybe have not enabled it (it is off by default)? I ask because if it was not off, then ever request for every CF page would be checking the file system to see if the template source had changed, and if so it would then recompile it. Especially if your source code is on another server or SAN/NAS, that i/o can be costly in some configurations (not inherently so, but worth considering). Fourth, you replied below to Kym about logging but s/he had asked about the CF Server monitor. (Even then, I don't quite see where it would have an impact on file access, but let's see what s/he has to say.) Finally, as far as monitoring SAN use, I just blogged about a free tool that may be of interest to some. See: http://www.carehart.org/blog/client/index.cfm/2010/5/17/free_tools_for_san_vm_monitori ng_more (And if that link above breaks as you read it in your email program, please don't complain. Just join it back together. :-) /charlie -Original Message- From: cfaussie@googlegroups.com [mailto:cfaus...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of BarryC Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 8:35 PM To: cfaussie Subject: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit I have ensured logging is not on, I'm not 100% sure if it was on or off, but my subsequent tests are all the same response times. What do you mean by a file with a funny opr two in the middle? Barry -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
RE: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit
If not a permission issue, an access issue? Are the files in use or being used another process that is locking the files? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
[cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit
Hi Kym, your setup sounds rather similar to ours, What is your version (including updater if any) of CF if you don't mind me asking? Thanks Barry On May 17, 2:26 pm, Kym Kovan dev-li...@mbcomms.net.au wrote: On 17/05/2010 11:00, BarryC wrote: Hi, Does anyone on here run coldfusion 9 on windows server 2008, 64 bit? Yes, heavily. We are running in to some performance issues which seem to be at an OS level and I'm wondering if anyone else has used this configuration with success. No issues whatsoever once we got used to the style of Win2008 R2, it's a very nailed-down OS. A cluster of servers running at 5 - 8 concurrent continuously with SQL2008 backend, also 64bit. The servers run at minimal CPU usage, the restrictions are memory ones rather than grunt. We also have a couple of web-only asset servers spitting out all of the graphics, etc., with a NAS behind them and they do put in the occasional pause waiting for things so your running of a NAS might be the issue. We run full CF code on every server with a sync tool to keep everything in order. and the speed of response. (All of the above is VMware Virtual Machines running off a SAN so there is network latency for the disks, just a different sort) -- Yours, Kym Kovan mbcomms.net.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
Re: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit
We have been running CF9 on Win 2k8 64bit with no issues. Here is once piece of advice if you are running IIS. http://blog.kukiel.net/2009/10/coldfusion-9-on-windows-server-2008.html The 2nd Comment. /Open jrun_iis6_wildcard.ini and uncomment maxworkerthreads and set it to a value higher then 25 and it should perform much better. / Regards, Paul Kukiel http://blog.kukiel.net On 17/05/2010 12:20 PM, BarryC wrote: Thanks Steve, we might have a go at installing the 32bit version of CF onto one of our front end servers as a test and see what difference that makes if our other tests don't give us any answers. On May 17, 1:34 pm, Steve Onnisst...@cfcentral.com.au wrote: To be honest I think it’s the 64bit CF server. I had lots of issues with cf writing file such as cfmail files and doing heavy db access processes like loops, issues that I never had with the 32 bit platform. I had some real bad memory consumption issues also, so bad the cf server was becoming unresponsive and the only way to correct it was to resrart the cf service. I have recently migrated some sites back to the 32 bit platform and not having any issues on it. That said, when I first had my 64bit windows os, it was when cf8 initially came out and I was running the 32bit cf server on the 64bit OS and I didn’t have any problems. It was only when I upgraded to the 64bit cf server that I started having issues. -Original Message- From: BarryC [mailto:barrychester...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, 17 May 2010 11:29 AM To: cfaussie Subject: [cfaussie] Re: Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit The thread dumps are showing a lot of wait points at native methods, there are a lot of waits for TCP responses (some database as to be expected, but most just loading cfm/cfc files and the occasional writing of files). We are running with a network file share which houses all the files (as we are running a clustered setup), we're going to do a test with the files hosted locally on a server shortly, but everything is pointing to the OS or the Network File Share as being problematic - it could be the OS itself though, that's why I'm wondering if there's something I don't know about server 2008 that might be an issue. Do tell about your experience with CF8 on 64 bit OS :) On May 17, 1:01 pm, Steve Onnisst...@cfcentral.com.au wrote: What are the issues? Going from my experience with CF8 on the 64 bit OS I wont be running CF on 64bit windows OS anymore -Original Message- From: BarryC [mailto:barrychester...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, 17 May 2010 11:00 AM To: cfaussie Subject: [cfaussie] Coldfusion 9 and Windows server 2008 64bit Hi, Does anyone on here run coldfusion 9 on windows server 2008, 64 bit? We are running in to some performance issues which seem to be at an OS level and I'm wondering if anyone else has used this configuration with success. Thanks Barry Chesterman -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups cfaussie group. To post to this group, send email to cfaus...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cfaussie+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en.
