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
...@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
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
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 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
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...
] 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
...@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
@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
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
...@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
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
: 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
: 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
: [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
: 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
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
: [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
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
[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
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
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
, 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
@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
: 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
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
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
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,
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
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,
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
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
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
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
: 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
35 matches
Mail list logo
