Thanks for both your help.
~|
Create robust enterprise, web RIAs.
Upgrade integrate Adobe Coldfusion MX7 with Flex 2
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;56760587;14748456;a?http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=LVNU
Hi all,
Is there a more reliable way to determine the domain name than using CGI.server
name?
Specfically, I have multiple domain names pointing to the same folder via IIS
and would like to determine which one is in use. I have noted that not all
interent users provide the CGI variables which
Is there a more reliable way to determine the domain name
than using CGI.server name?
Specfically, I have multiple domain names pointing to the
same folder via IIS and would like to determine which one is
in use. I have noted that not all interent users provide the
CGI variables which
cfdump var=#getPageContext().getRequest()# / will give you an
alternative to almost all CGI variables provided you are using CFMX 6 and
later.
HTH
Qasim
On 12/27/06, Dave Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a more reliable way to determine the domain name
than using CGI.server name?
On Friday 15 September 2006 20:21, Snake wrote:
No because CFC's did not exist in previous versions :-)
The underlying problem of abusing the various scopes did though.
--
Tom Chiverton
Helping to dramatically brand edge-of-your-seat patterns
-Original Message-
From: Tom Kitta
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Fri Sep 15 22:57:22 2006
Subject: RE: Reliability
Since we are on reliability issue, did anyone have a problem with a CF
server running Dev Net edition of CFMX 7.2 enterprise on Win 2003 Standard?
Once a week or so I get Connection
--//-
-Original Message-
From: Neil Middleton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 5:22 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Reliability
Bit of an odd one this - but does anyone else find CF a little more
unreliable than other similar products when using them in day to day use.
The only
:27 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Reliability
We restart CF services on each of our production servers every night.
Is that a common practice elsewhere?
~Brad
-Original Message-
From: Andy Matthews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 8:17 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE
without an OS restart), but we got ourselves in the habit a
nightly CF restart out of cautiousness I guess.
~Brad
-Original Message-
From: Peterson, Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 8:43 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Reliability
The only time I ever bring down
absolutely crazy, and half the time it was IIS causing
trouble rather than CF.
-Original Message-
From: Brad Wood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 15 September 2006 14:56
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Reliability
One of our websites is hardware load balanced across 5 Linux servers
and
we
Sadly, in my experience almost all CF problems are due to the coder(s)
who built the system and seldom have anything to do with CF itself,
unless it was bad CF settings -- again, human error.
Its the answer no systems guy or gal wants to hear: its their own
fault (or hopefully the blame can be
On Friday 15 September 2006 14:27, Brad Wood wrote:
We restart CF services on each of our production servers every night.
Is that a common practice elsewhere?
I've only ever heard of it being done on heavily used ISS systems.
--
Tom Chiverton
Helping to vitalistically initiate advanced
On Friday 15 September 2006 14:17, Andy Matthews wrote:
I'd be interested in hearing more about this topic too. Our two sysadmins
curse CF all the time because it's buggy and it crashes all the time and
it sucks. I know that it CAN'T just be CF and I've asked our owner to
bring in a consultant
The only time I've had to restart CF is when we've had to reboot the
servers after applying patches to Windows/IIS/CFetc.
Never had to do it because CF has hung.
On 15/09/06, Tom Chiverton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 15 September 2006 14:17, Andy Matthews wrote:
I'd be interested in
We restart CF services on each of our production servers every night.
Is that a common practice elsewhere?
~Brad
-Original Message-
From: Andy Matthews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 8:17 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Reliability
I'd be interested
AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Reliability
We restart CF services on each of our production servers every night.
Is that a common practice elsewhere?
~Brad
-Original Message-
From: Andy Matthews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 8:17 AM
To: CF-Talk
September 2006 14:17
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Reliability
I'd be interested in hearing more about this topic too. Our two sysadmins
curse CF all the time because it's buggy and it crashes all the time and it
sucks. I know that it CAN'T just be CF and I've asked our owner to bring in
a consultant
On Friday 15 September 2006 16:08, Snake wrote:
CFMX is less forgiving about bad code than previous versions.
Wouldn't both of the problems you cite have killed previous versions too ?
--
Tom Chiverton
Helping to preemptively maximize web-enabled communities
I think that Terrence Ryan had the best approach to the situation. CFMX is a
stable product, we've run about 15 CFMX servers around the world supporting
corporate intranets and extranets with a constant load and rarely have problems.
Take a look at Terrence's pragmatic approach and try to
have said, the most notable exceptions to this have been from
bad code.
-Original Message-
From: Brent Nicholas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 11:32 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Reliability
I think that Terrence Ryan had the best approach to the situation
No because CFC's did not exist in previous versions :-)
-Original Message-
From: Tom Chiverton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 15 September 2006 16:28
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Reliability
On Friday 15 September 2006 16:08, Snake wrote:
CFMX is less forgiving about bad code than
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Reliability
I think that Terrence Ryan had the best approach to the situation. CFMX is a
stable product, we've run about 15 CFMX servers around the world supporting
corporate intranets and extranets with a constant load and rarely have problems.
Take a look at Terrence's
Since we are on reliability issue, did anyone have a problem with a CF
server running Dev Net edition of CFMX 7.2 enterprise on Win 2003 Standard?
Once a week or so I get Connection was reset errors which don't clear up
even after restarting all services - have to restart my DEV box to clear it
up
Bit of an odd one this - but does anyone else find CF a little more
unreliable than other similar products when using them in day to day use.
The only reason I ask is that our CF servers always seem a little more
unstable than some of our other servers running things such as ASP.NET or
Ruby on
Nope...although I do hear some horror storiesfor me CF has always (with
some
exceptions of course) been plenty stable...much more so since MX
Personally I think stability is a tough one to nail down...a lot depends on the
environment (OS/DB/webserver/etc.)...not always apples to apples
-Original Message-
From: Neil Middleton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 5:22 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Reliability
Bit of an odd one this - but does anyone else find CF a little more
unreliable than other similar products when using them in day to day
use
Technology
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Neil Middleton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 6:22 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Reliability
Bit of an odd one this - but does anyone else find CF a little more
unreliable than other similar
the
server.
Russ
-Original Message-
From: Neil Middleton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 14 September 2006 23:22
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Reliability
Bit of an odd one this - but does anyone else find CF a little more
unreliable than other similar products when using them in day to day use
load under Sun but is fine with the same load under windows.
TK
-Original Message-
From: Snake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 6:46 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Reliability
Mostly I put it down to JAVA, as CFMX falls over a lot more than CF4/5 did.
When ASP
Subject: Reliability
Bit of an odd one this - but does anyone else find CF a little more
unreliable than other similar products when using them in day to day use.
The only reason I ask is that our CF servers always seem a little more
unstable than some of our other servers running things
Hi Neil,
our Railo Server on our website wich serves up to 60 websites has not
been restarted since May 2004 (except for planned maintenance and update
reasons). That's when we installed Railo on that server. So I guess the
stability of this CFML Server is quite good.
Nevertheless I did not
I am running it fine on our intranet, no problems so far.
--
Jay
-Original Message-
From: Damien McKenna [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 09 August 2004 18:47
To: CF-Talk
Subject: OT: MySQL 4.1 reliability?
How reliable is MySQL 4.1?I know its flagged as beta but
would
I've been playing around with it on my home machine and word Dev machine with no problems so far.
Andy J
I am running it fine on our intranet, no problems so far.
--
Jay
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
[Donations and Support]
How reliable is MySQL 4.1?I know its flagged as beta but would it be
safe to use for a small task, e.g. a bug tracker?
--
Damien McKenna - Web Developer - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Limu Company - http://www.thelimucompany.com/ - 407-804-1014
Nothing endures but change. - Heraclitus
[Todays Threads]
I was using 4.0 for quite a while during it's beta run.It was rock
solid.Can't speak for 4.1, as I haven't used it at all, but the
MySQL guys seem to do it right.I wouldn't use it for a mission
critical app, but for internal stuff like a bug tracker, I'd go for
it.Especially if I knew I was
I use 4.1.2 on my development system (which I beat the *%$# out of
everyday) and I have no problems. I think a basic bug tracker would
probably go fine...
Cutter
Damien McKenna wrote:
How reliable is MySQL 4.1?I know its flagged as beta but would it be
safe to use for a small task, e.g. a
Damien McKenna wrote:
How reliable is MySQL 4.1?
How good is your backup procedure?
Jochem
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
[Donations and Support]
I'm getting into using web services more (from Flash and CF) and I'm
curious if there is an amount of data that is considered reliable and
if there is a set amount that is considered too much for web services
to handle.Just as an off the wall example, let's say I have a server
with information in
of actual data,
you have 256 characters of XML tags.
Other than that, I never never experienced reliability problems with
the process.The largest db I moved was 33 meg.
Now, some opinion..
In the situation that you describe, the format and structure of the
data is known in advance by both
Batch Jobs.
Yes, there are Other Bugs in CFMX and am hoping MM would try to solve them
asap.
Joe Eugene
-Original Message-
From: Tom Kitta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 10:21 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: [Reply To] (CF 6 reliability) from Re: Memory Leak on
Win2k
/ http://www.euservices.com
__
-Original Message-
From: Ryan Sabir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 8:46 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re:(CF 6 reliability) from Re: Memory Leak on Win2k/CMX6.1
Hi all,
I have recently
Design
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 11:53 AM
Subject: [Reply To] (CF 6 reliability) from Re: Memory Leak on Win2k/CMX6.1
What are other people's views on this - how many people are using
MX with no problems?
You wrote
I suggest the user with problems
What are other people's views on this - how many people are using
MX with no problems?
You wrote
I suggest the user with problems with the server product, to
uninstall it completely and revert to CF 5.0, until Macromedia
gets its act
together.While a lot was
isn't done!
- Original Message -
From: Boldacious Web Design [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 11:53 AM
Subject: [Reply To] (CF 6 reliability) from Re: Memory Leak on Win2k/CMX6.1
| What are other people's views on this - how many people
Might be easier to ask how many people are having serious problems with MX.
Ken
Boldacious Web Design wrote:
What are other people's views on this - how many people are using
MX with no problems?
You wrote
I suggest the user with problems with the
Hi all,
I have recently installed CFMX 6.1 in a high traffic production
environment, and I can say that I haven't experienced this memory leak
problem.
I am getting quite a few deadlock errors and service too busy error,
but I suspect thats an issue with the questionable code that we
inherited.
CMFX has been running really well for us since the 6.1 release. No
complaints about stability.
Brook
At 03:53 AM 11/4/2003, you wrote:
What are other people's views on this - how many people are using
MX with no problems?
You wrote
I suggest the user with
So far it's been fine for me - no problems I can't trace to my own
stupidity.
Jim Davis
-Original Message-
From: Boldacious Web Design [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 11:54 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: [Reply To] (CF 6 reliability) from Re: Memory Leak on
Win2k
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: [Reply To] (CF 6 reliability) from Re: Memory Leak on
Win2k/CMX6.1
So far it's been fine for me - no problems I can't trace to my own
stupidity.
Jim Davis
-Original Message-
From: Boldacious Web Design [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 11
Yeah and I've been using CF for 8 years now. Obviously over time you learn
much more and need to adapt more.
Important:This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is confidential, commercially valuable or subject to legal or parliamentary privilege.If
You will love Oracle 10g then!
Important:This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is confidential, commercially valuable or subject to legal or parliamentary privilege.If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any review,
This seems to work rather well on my dev server. Are there any issues I
should know about / fix before I try to pursuade my server people it is
ok? It's a very low volume application.
I have v.1-8-8 of htmldoc.exe which works fine, but I believe the latest
version is 1.8.19. The GNU
for, it hasn't happened to me though. Good luck!
v/r,
Jeff
-Original Message-
From: Richard Meredith-Hardy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 2:01 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: htmldoc.exe / cf_html2pdf3 reliability?
This seems to work rather well on my dev server
I also use it on a low-volume app and cf_html2pdf3 has worked
very well... although the lack of CSS functionality is often
a pisser.
The latest version of ActivePDF WebGrabber handles CSS, if you're interested
in that.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
voice: (202)
happened to me though. Good luck!
v/r,
Jeff
-Original Message-
From: Richard Meredith-Hardy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 2:01 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: htmldoc.exe / cf_html2pdf3 reliability?
This seems to work rather well on my dev server. Are there any
Here's an example of a batch file that you could schedule via
AT or WinAT
(or any other non-CF scheduling service). The first two lines set NT
[snip]
Thanks for that Jim - appreciated.
--
Aidan Whitehall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Netshopper UK Ltd
Advanced Web Solutions Services
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 09:30:52 -0700
From: "Jaime Garza" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Reliability of CFSCHEDULE in CF 4.5.1. SP2?
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I know that if you schedule two tasks to start at the same ti
Damon,
Will increasing the number of simultaneous requests make the scheduler any
more reliable?
Jim
- Original Message -
From: "Damon Cooper" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "CF-Talk" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 12:30 PM
Subj
ain if on the same server ) uses another request
and uses a thread. Now if both scheduled task are long running request then
you will be tying up 4 threads for that time and the server could appear
hung.
Also, be sure you're on SP1.
Thanks
D
Is CFSCHEDULE any more reliable in v4.5.1 than in past
releases? I've never
trusted it, always using Windows AT to run batch files
launching templates.
I'm really struggling with the scheduler at the moment... nuthin' seems to
work (haven't tried setting up events using the CFSCHEDULE
AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Reliability of CFSCHEDULE in CF 4.5.1
Is CFSCHEDULE any more reliable in v4.5.1 than in past
releases? I've never
trusted it, always using Windows AT to run batch files
launching templates.
I'm really struggling with the scheduler at the moment... nuthin' seems
is on this list .
Justin
- Original Message -
From: "Aidan Whitehall" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "CF-Talk" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 4:47 PM
Subject: RE: Reliability of CFSCHEDULE in CF 4.5.1
Is CFSCHEDULE any more reliable in v4.5.1 than in past
r
I believe in the Windows NT resource kit you can find WinAT which is a
graphical interface to teh command line AT command, that
should help you a
ton into using it...
Thanks... I'll look into that.
--
Aidan Whitehall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Netshopper UK Ltd
Advanced Web Solutions Services
who won a free copy of the scheduler at CFUN 2K and did not
receive a serial number as of yet please let me know off list.
- Original Message -
From: "JustinMacCarthy" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "CF-Talk" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 12:05 PM
Subj
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 8:48 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Reliability of CFSCHEDULE in CF 4.5.1
Is CFSCHEDULE any more reliable in v4.5.1 than in past
releases? I've never
trusted it, always using Windows AT to run batch files
launching templates.
I'm
tober 04, 2000 9:47 AM
Subject: RE: Reliability of CFSCHEDULE in CF 4.5.1
Is CFSCHEDULE any more reliable in v4.5.1 than in past
releases? I've never
trusted it, always using Windows AT to run batch files
launching templates.
I'm really struggling with the scheduler at the moment... n
I have been using Arcana Scheduler for the last few years and couldn't be
happier
Does all kinds of task scheduling at $55.00 per server.
Details can be found at:
http://www.arcanadev.com/scheduler/
Frank
--
Is CFSCHEDULE any more reliable in v4.5.1 than in past releases? I've never
trusted it, always using Windows AT to run batch files launching templates.
Just wondering if Allaire has finally gotten a handle on all the past
problems.
I need to develope somethiing for an environment running 4.5.1
I have been using the CFSCHEDULE in 4.01 and 4.51
and runs great for me.
Server platform: Windows NT SP 4
-Original Message-
From: Jim McAtee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 4:20 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Reliability of CFSCHEDULE in CF 4.5.1
Is CFSCHEDULE any
alk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Reliability of CFSCHEDULE in CF 4.5.1
Is CFSCHEDULE any more reliable in v4.5.1 than in past releases? I've never
trusted it, always using Windows AT to run batch files launching templates.
Just wondering if Allaire has finally gotten a handle on all the past
prob
I am looking to invest some money in some computers soon and was
wondering which is a better configuration. 2 huge computers with maxed out
ram, raid 5, 3 network cards, the whole nine yards, or that equivalent price
with maybe 5 computers and everything is clustered using cluster cats
71 matches
Mail list logo
