ColdFusion MX or Back to ColdFusion 5.0

[admin]

We started with CF MX on NT26 and since then we have had nothing but trouble with CF MX, crashing its self, not installed its self right.. It has become a nightmare trying to keep it installed and working as CF MX should.

Now we are up to NT32 and are still seeing issues. I am uninstalling CF MX from NT31 system because it will not even install the stuff its needs for services and other things and going back to CF 5.0. We have 5.0 on all boxes below NT26 and it works great never an issue. CF MX is causing us to have to reboot systems just to fix it and causing down time for everyone.

I wanted to take a little poll here and see what you guys think..


I know some of you CF guys will not like this,but we can't keep offering something so unstable to the rest of the customers..

[jmbeach]

For me there is no question that I'd rather have the servers be stable overall, assuming downgrading CF will actually do this. I think you've mentioned numerous times, Brad, that CF is only being used by a small number of people, and while I'd hate to see them lose functionality, maybe it's time to hold off on MX until PSoft can allow you to have separate boxes altogether for ColdFusion.

Any word on when that may be reality? Or is that going to be part of HSphere 2.4?

[admin]

Yea I have tried every thing I can do.. I really wanted to support CF MX for everyone but if its causing me to have to reboot the system and reinstall CF MX at least once a day what use is it..

I think once Macromedia got there hands in to CF they just trashed it from what I have seen. 5.0 has a lot of code from the maker before Macromedia and it runs like a champ day in and day out.. Never an issue with it.

[pushcode]

The latest version of ColdFusion MX, I believe version 6.1 or higher, is much more stable. I know of many major hosting companies that have switched to hosting MX 6.1 and are having no problems to speak of. I personally host one of my sites with CrystalTech, on an MX 6.1 account, and it has been rock solidly reliable.

CF, regardless of version, should be hosted on seperate servers than other technologies...as with all others. .net, cf, php should all be on their own servers, but that's another isue.

[nabsUK]

I for one would unfortunately have to leave Vortech if this was to happen as we work almost exclusively with MX.. although the service here has been great in every other respect. I would be sad and dissappointed to have to move! *sniff*

Brad, you mentioned a while back the possibility of setting up some CF only servers and moving all CF clients accross. Is this still a possibility?

[admin]

Yea we could setup CF only boxes but not till 2.4.

CF MX looks great and it should be run on its own system where the only things on it is IIS and CF MX then it might work great. But we can't do that right now.

NT31 has been downgraded to CF5 and is working great now. CF MX will not even install the services as it should. Not much I can do. I have never been a big fan of CF because it is a hog and is not made for this type of hosting really but I had no issues with 5.0 and thohgt MX would be just as stable. But as we have seen over the past 2 weeks it only gets worse.

[CelticRaven]

Stability is such a high priority. Ranks right up there next to speed.

But are we sacrificing new technology for stability? win2000 instead of 2003, cf 5 instead of mx.

Will there be a point when customers are offered "all the old stuff...but at least it won't crash...well, ok it will just not as often"

Not a complaint at all, just discussion - I don't even use CF!

[jmbeach]

Brad, would it be possible to host the MX users on a box outside of HSphere for the meantime? I know it would completely limit what they could do without a CP, but it would give them a box that may be stable by itself until 2.4 comes out.

I also agree with CelticRaven, at some point you have to step up to new technologies, but at what cost. Not sure if HSphere has anything to do with the other softwares not working well together, but it's certainly a possibility considering how much interaction HSphere has with everything else.

[Clutch]

We currently are not using any MX-specific features, so I wouldn't raise a huge stink about it... but I sure would prefer to have it. If not now, eventually. It gives us the ability to host and develop MX-specific sites -- most of the serious ColdFusion shops are using MX and looking for MX developers.

I 100% understand the situation though. If we take it away now, I just hope that eventually there will be a server or two running MX so we can use those features if a client of ours needs it.

[admin]

CelticRaven, Windows 2000 was unstable when it first came out as well, it got stable around SP1. Windows 2003 is most likly going to be the same way, OS and software takes time to get better. There is not a single thing windows 2003 can do that windows 2000 can do.

As far as MX and CF 5 I don't know what one can do and what the other can't do. I can tell from running 25 systems with CF 5 and 7 systems now with MX that 5 is 10000% more stable. I have not had to touch CF 5 since the install on the older boxes and CF MX has had to be reinstalled at least 10 times on each of the other systems because it just stops working. Then you reinstall and it f's up all its own INI files. There is no end with CF MX and there support down right SUCKS now.

I could care less what version runs as long as the systems are stable.


As far as setting up a system on its own, I would rather not do that at this time. I would rather see 5.0 put back on the systems so they they are stable for all the customes and when 2.4 comes out maybe offer MX on its own system and also ofer 5.0 on its own system.

[admin]

There is one other option, its a little messer then the way 2.4 would do CF systems. We could system up a system tie it in to H-Sphere ONLY install CF MX on it, but then any time you wanted CF MX you would have to get us to turn to move the account to the CF MX system. This should be easy in H-Sphere as it cane move sites from system to system. That might be a good option we could work on..


But this would not be an instant signup kind of option but we could do it by hand.

[nabsUK]

Another solution! Install 2.4 beta with CFMX and have one big bug party!

Seriously though, I am getting quite worried as it seems like the decision has already been made?!

[jmbeach]

Originally Posted by admin

There is one other option, its a little messer then the way 2.4 would do CF systems. We could system up a system tie it in to H-Sphere ONLY install CF MX on it, but then any time you wanted CF MX you would have to get us to turn to move the account to the CF MX system. This should be easy in H-Sphere as it cane move sites from system to system. That might be a good option we could work on..


But this would not be an instant signup kind of option but we could do it by hand.

I think this is a great idea, if it's possible. Would still give those who need it the option while getting MX off the Windows Boxes, where it doesn't belong Oh, I'll get flamed for that!

I'm shocked to see how split users are. I figured removing it would be the popular option - that's democracy for you

[admin]

Originally Posted by nabsUK

Another solution! Install 2.4 beta with CFMX and have one big bug party!

Seriously though, I am getting quite worried as it seems like the decision has already been made?!

Only one that has been made is NT31 or any others that run in to issues with have to be downgraded now to make sure the system its self is stable. But I am looking at options like adding a system some how so we can run MX only on it even before 2.4

[CelticRaven]

Brad, I can hear the frustration in your post

I couldn't agree more with your statement
"I could care less what version runs as long as the systems are stable."