I particularly find this interesting:
On Windows 2000, Macromedia benchmarks indicate that ColdFusion
Server 5 processes page requests up to 5 times faster than ColdFusion
Server 4.5.1.
Anyone have any real life experiences on how much faster it REALLY
is? How about on NT?
--
Bud
to upgrade, you'll need to take a new
look at the system specs as your old machine may not cut the mustard. (more
relevant to the smaller sites on low traffic setups)
-Original Message-
From: Bud [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 16 July 2001 14:40
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Review: CF
I did a few timings of our email jobs, and I found it about 3-4 times
faster. This was a pretty intensive test executing about 30,000 queries and
sending 20,000 emails. This is on Windows NT 4.
tom
Bud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:p0432041ab7789ee2e9ee@[192.168.0.2]...
I
://www.macromedia.com/software/coldfusion/productinfo/performance_brief/
cf5_perf_brief.pdf
Tim P.
- Original Message -
From: Bud [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: Review: CF 5.0
I particularly find this interesting:
On Windows 2000
I'm of the opinion that Macromedia cooked the benchmark results to get
what they wanted. Either that, or I'm reading them wrong. Macromedia's
benchmark document is here:
http://www.macromedia.com/software/coldfusion/productinfo/performance_brief/cf5_perf_brief.pdf
Please check out page 12 of
I think if a company benchmarks its own products, you can
rest assured that the results will be somewhat skewed :)
Norman
Quoting Edward Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm of the opinion that Macromedia cooked the
benchmark results to get
what they wanted. Either that, or I'm reading them
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 10:08 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Review: CF 5.0
I'm of the opinion that Macromedia cooked the benchmark results to get
what they wanted. Either that, or I'm reading them wrong. Macromedia's
benchmark document is here:
http://www.macromedia.com/software
We spent several months analyzing and tuning the internals,
brought in top hired guns from Microsoft at one point in the
case of Windows 2000-specific tuning, and our discoveries
actually resulted in several Windows 2000 performance bottlenecks
tweaks that should be rolled into future
.
- Damon
-Original Message-
From: Edward Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 10:08 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Review: CF 5.0
I'm of the opinion that Macromedia cooked the benchmark results to get
what they wanted. Either that, or I'm reading them wrong
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 1:08 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Cc: 'Damon Cooper '
Subject: RE: Review: CF 5.0
We spent several months analyzing and tuning the internals,
brought in top hired guns from Microsoft at one point in the
case of Windows 2000-specific tuning, and our
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
http://www.firmware.com.au/news/article.cfm?story_id=38
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP Personal Edition 6.0.2
iQA/AwUBO1H0LkUmflCFE8qcEQJlIACgk4/8OXzKkpxclR9ggINQxjVig6cAoItg
fMbg5cYFwlbia1JR3e7sknjH
=NK9J
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
11 matches
Mail list logo