Skip navigation

ColdFusion Server Administration

mrdimn

Currently Being Moderated

Hardware

Nov 3, 2010 12:05 PM

Hi folks -

I think Adobe needs to update their Spec Sheet for CF!

So folks - let me ask - what's the current hardware chipset solution for CF on a Windows-based platform?

Can CF 9 Enterprise handle:

1) a pair of Xeon chips?

2) a pair of i7-980x chips?

Any and all questions and comments are appreciated.

Thanks,

Doug

880 Views 18 Replies Latest reply: Charlie Arehart, Nov 5, 2010 10:02 AM

Replies

Currently Being Moderated

1. Charlie Arehart,

Nov 3, 2010 12:48 PM in reply to mrdimn

Report

Wow, that is interesting to see how old the processors are that are listed (such as on the CF9 requirements page: http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/systemreqs/).

That said, I've not ever heard of CF not being able to run on any given processor. And really, it would seem more an issue of the JVM rather than CF (though I agree that if the JVM docs have listed more modern processors, then CF ought to list them or test for them.)

I'll bring this to the attention of some folks on the CF team to see if they may be able to attend to it, perhaps for CF10 if not now.

/charlie

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

2. mrdimn,

Nov 3, 2010 1:47 PM in reply to Charlie Arehart

Report

Hi Charlie -

Thanks for the info.

I was thinking that CF should work on just about any proc, but if Adobe &/or the CF team haven't updated the specs
for CF 9, then I just had to question it, as a basic CYA.

Thanks again!

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

3. Charlie Arehart,

Nov 3, 2010 2:06 PM in reply to mrdimn

Report

Sure, and I have raised the question to those I can. I also pointed them to this thread, if they may want to add thoughts here themselves. I wouldn't have high expectations, though, if perhaps there's some corporate requirement to get that clarified. I'd suggest you may have no choice but to go on instinct. We shall see, of course.

/charlie

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

4. mrdimn,

Nov 3, 2010 2:50 PM in reply to Charlie Arehart

Report

It would be nice to see if someone actually updates the specifications.

What would be better is they actually thoroughly test the configurations and validate and then provide the details.

Anyway, thanks for passing along the info.

I'll be attending the meetings you have scheduled for tomorrow on the MeetUp site.

Take care,

Doug

|
Mark as:
747 posts
Mar 11, 2003

Currently Being Moderated

5. Dave Watts,

Nov 3, 2010 7:55 PM in reply to mrdimn

Report

Well, honestly, there's no real need to test new processors. That's what X86 architecture compatibility is for. CF will run on any X86 compatible hardware that meets the minimum specifications (and the system requirements are intended to describe the minimum specifications only).

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
http://training.figleaf.com/

Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on
GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite.

Read this before you post:
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/607238

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

6. carl type3,

Nov 3, 2010 8:18 PM in reply to Dave Watts

Report

Trouble is someone pulls out of their retired servers this "Intel Pentium4 800Mhz 1Gb RAM HD SCSI narrow NIC 10/100" and wants to run the CF9 based application on that hardware because according to specification it meets minimum hardware requirement for CF. So CF9 has this retired P4 and the techo desktop / notebook is some 4 core 3GHz 6Gb RAM - would be better off installing CF9 on the desktop / notebook (ignoring the connection limits of desktop OS).

IMHO, Carl.

|
Mark as:
747 posts
Mar 11, 2003

Currently Being Moderated

7. Dave Watts,

Nov 3, 2010 8:25 PM in reply to carl type3

Report

Well, sure, software will run better on faster hardware than on slower hardware. But minimum system requirements for CF haven't really changed that much over the last few versions of CF (with the exception of 64-bit OS support, I guess). In any case, that's irrelevant to the original poster's question, which asked about running CF on newer processors: the answer to that is, if it can run (however slowly) on older x86 processors, it can run on newer ones as well.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
http://training.figleaf.com/

Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on
GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite.

Read this before you post:
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/607238

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

8. mrdimn,

Nov 4, 2010 7:57 AM in reply to Dave Watts

Report

Hi Dave -

Thank you for also answering my question. I do appreciate it.

What's not evident is that my original list of processors included the Itanium chip from Intel.
I was also curious about that and since I am not familiar with it, I figured I would throw that into the mix,
until I did a little research and the purpose of that chip, might not be a good fit, so I removed it.

But as I was reading the spec sheet listing CF 9 will work on a Pentium 4, I figured I would see
what other people had to say and see if there was something I was missing.

I figured it would work with the chips listed, but to steal a quote from a movie...
"Assumption is the mother of all"... foul-ups.

And I hate assuming anything and fouling up my business.

Thanks again!

Doug

|
Mark as:
747 posts
Mar 11, 2003

Currently Being Moderated

9. Dave Watts,

Nov 4, 2010 8:14 AM in reply to mrdimn

Report

I understand your reluctance to make assumptions. That is generally a good practice. However, in this case, you don't have to worry. That's the point of the x86 instruction set.

Also, if you're concerned, you can always test things to your own satisfaction using the free Trial or Developer editions.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
http://training.figleaf.com/

Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on
GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite.

Read this before you post:
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/607238

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

10. mrdimn,

Nov 4, 2010 8:24 AM in reply to Dave Watts

Report

Dave -

Again, assuming everything works correctly in the world ,
even though you mentioned that everything should work in the x86 instruction set.

I am assuming that there shouldn't be too many issues with CF 9 running on a x64 platform?

Thanks,

Doug

|
Mark as:
747 posts
Mar 11, 2003

Currently Being Moderated

11. Dave Watts,

Nov 4, 2010 9:42 AM in reply to mrdimn

Report

CF runs very nicely on x64 - both 64- and 32-bit versions. If you can deploy on x64, that's what I'd recommend.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
http://training.figleaf.com/

Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) on
GSA Schedule, and provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized
instruction at our training centers, online, or onsite.

Read this before you post:
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/607238

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

12. mrdimn,

Nov 4, 2010 12:24 PM in reply to Dave Watts

Report

Hi Dave -

Thanks for the info. Again, I do appreciate it.
Do you know if CF9 comes specifically in an x64 version?

And how much of the server's memory can be accessed by CF9 to improve performance?

And if you don't mind, tell Steve D. he did a good job today delivering his presentation.

Thanks,

Doug

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

13. Charlie Arehart,

Nov 5, 2010 6:10 AM in reply to Dave Watts

Report

Dave, I realize the thread sorted itself out, but I'll add, since I think other readers may wonder about this: while I agree that it's reasonable to assume that the system requirements page lists "minimum" requirements, the fact is that it doesn't really say that. Again, considering the CF9 page: http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/systemreqs/, I could see how someone could read that and think--these are what are "required", not "minimally".

I realize that none of us has a say in getting that changed, even if we may agree that it should be. But in case someone from Adobe may ever see this thread and be compelled to consider it, I leave it for consideration (or debate, if others here think I'm wrong to make that assertion.)

/charlie

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

14. Charlie Arehart,

Nov 5, 2010 6:24 AM in reply to Dave Watts

Report

And adding to that (I know Dave knows this, but I'm saying it for others), not only does CF9 run nicely on 64-bit, but whereas CF8 allowed only Enterprise to run on 64-bit, CF9 (truly "nicely") lets you run either Standard or Enterprise on 64-bit. Thanks to the CF team for spreading that love.

/charlie

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

15. Adam Cameron.,

Nov 5, 2010 6:52 AM in reply to Charlie Arehart

Report

I realize that none of us has a say in getting that changed, even if we may agree that it should be. But in case someone from Adobe may ever see this thread and be compelled to consider it, I leave it for consideration (or debate, if others here think I'm wrong to make that assertion.)

Charlie, why don't you just tell them:
http://www.adobe.com/bin/webfeedback.cgi

--
Adam

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

16. Charlie Arehart,

Nov 5, 2010 7:03 AM in reply to Adam Cameron.

Report

Fair point, but there's no link to that on that page, which is unfortunate. It ought to be on every page.

Anyway, I have now filed a feedback there for this page, and also pointing out that the link to the feedback form ought to be on all pages.

Thanks, Adam.

/charlie

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

17. Adam Cameron.,

Nov 5, 2010 7:48 AM in reply to Charlie Arehart

Report

Yeah, I initially went to the page expecting to see the "comment on this" link, as per the livedocs pages. I mean I don't expect the comments to actually
show in the marketing section of the website, but there should still be a mechanism to make the comment right from where one is looking at the thing they want to comment on.

Oh well. The website I maintain doesn't have that feature either, so I'm one to talk ;-)

--
Adam

|
Mark as:
Currently Being Moderated

18. Charlie Arehart,

Nov 5, 2010 10:02 AM in reply to Adam Cameron.

Report

Touché.

/charlie

|
Mark as: