Re: Review: CF 5.0

2001-07-16 Thread Bud
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

RE: Review: CF 5.0

2001-07-16 Thread Rich Wild
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

Re: Review: CF 5.0

2001-07-16 Thread tom muck
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

Re: Review: CF 5.0

2001-07-16 Thread Tim Painter
://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

Re: Review: CF 5.0

2001-07-16 Thread Edward Smith
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

Re: Review: CF 5.0

2001-07-16 Thread Norman Elton
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

RE: Review: CF 5.0

2001-07-16 Thread Damon Cooper
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

RE: Review: CF 5.0

2001-07-16 Thread Dave Watts
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

Re: Review: CF 5.0

2001-07-16 Thread Edward Smith
. - 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

RE: Review: CF 5.0

2001-07-16 Thread Damon Cooper
:[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

Review: CF 5.0

2001-07-15 Thread Peter Tilbrook
-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-