Macromedia have released a whitepaper on performance comparing CFMX and CF5 on various platforms. ColdFusion MX outperforms ColdFusion 5 in both performance and scalability. Testing was done on Windows, Linux, and Solaris.
Performance Summary
- Windows - An average of 10% faster than ColdFusion 5 with more linear SMP scalability
- Solaris - An average of 30% faster than ColdFusion 5
- Linux - An average of 45% faster than ColdFusion 5
"While end-user results will vary based on application complexity and various environmental factors, users should experience comparable or improved server page processing performance and scalability over the same applications running in ColdFusion 5. Given the performance gains between ColdFusion 4.5 and ColdFusion 5, customers moving from ColdFusion 4.5 directly to ColdFusion MX are likely to experience particularly significant improvements in performance.
It would, however, be unfortunate to simply migrate existing ColdFusion applications from ColdFusion 5 to ColdFusion MX. The added benefits of the new server architecture and development architecture (CFCs) in ColdFusion MX are many and, as this document demonstrates, come at no additional cost to application performance or scalability."
-- From the Executive Summary, ColdFusionMX Performance Brief
Posted by modius at 12:04 PM | Permalink
Trackback: http://blog.daemon.com.au/cgi-bin/dmblog/mt-tb.cgi/29
It is simply not true.
To get MX to work faster than 5 you must turn on trusted cache (never look for new templates) and boost the number of cached files and queries to cover your entire website and queries. Increase JVM memory. Also you need to reboot 4 to 6 times a day under medium and heavy load (read CF Administration forum at MM to see what I am talking about).
A CFMX availability is about 85-90%... for those with a real website with real visitors, it is a complete disaster.
Posted by: Patrick Scantland on October 23, 2002 12:59 AM
In reply to Patrick,
We have not seen any of the problems you reference in your post. We do not run with trusted cache and see a substantial performance improvement over CF 5.
Also, the only restart/reboot of the server I have EVER done was to apply windows fixes. Our availability is better than %99 (And I am sure of that number, I have metrix to back it up)
Posted by: Jeff on February 21, 2003 05:39 AM
In reply to Jeff,
Although, we have not seen some of the things that Patrick has mentioned, we have experienced slowness compared to CF 5. In my opinion CF 5 is a lot more stable and faster. Please send me configuration guidelines that may improve my performance. Thanks.
Posted by: johnny molina on April 30, 2004 01:39 AM