Cache web server paths = BAD
I moved Fusion Authority off of the main House of Fusion box last night leaving HoF alone on the box. I thought that this would be a good time to try out one of those admin settings you never use.
Cache web server paths - Caches page paths on single-site web server installations, which provides improved performance. You must restart the server for this change to take effect.
Oh was this a bad idea. The ram usage for the CF server jumped right through the roof! We're not talking in a day or even an hour. We're talking in the space of a few minutes. I had to take the option off ASAP to get the box back to normal. Ug.
Comments
[Add Comment]
And you're surprised that enabling any form of caching uses memory? :)
# Posted By Sean Corfield
| 11/30/05 7:28 PM
The JRun.exe starts out running at 80 meg and slowly climbs up to about 250-300 in 24 hours. To see it jump from 80 to 300 in less than 2 minutes is not normal. I use trusted cache for the site and I don't see the memory jump almost at all. Caching the webserver paths must be REALLY memory intensive to jump over 200 meg in so short a time.
# Posted By Michael Dinowitz
| 12/1/05 12:25 AM
I changed 6 months ago for the same reasons.
# Posted By Jeff
| 10/14/06 9:17 AM
Caching tends to be generally process intensive.
# Posted By Spyware
| 3/18/07 7:48 PM
I'd say it depends on the type of caching going on. When template caching is turned on I don't see a processor hit and the memory doesn't spike. It was the huge and sudden memory increase when using this type of caching that bothered me. I expected the two to be similar, but that was definitely not the case. If I knew more about what ColdFusion was doing under the hood for this feature, it would make me feel better and know more about where and when it should be used.
# Posted By Michael Dinowitz
| 3/18/07 8:12 PM
in different folders for easy accessibility.
# Posted By Microsoft Office
| 12/13/11 3:44 AM
It helps buyers and sellers, and they go to the purchase and sale activities.
# Posted By omega replica watches
| 1/14/12 10:32 PM
[Add Comment]
