SeeFusion vs FusionReactor

I'm about to invest in one of these, and I'm looking for advice and/or practical experience.  We have several applications running, and we're trying to hunt down the source of site slowdowns.  Is there an overriding reason to pick one over the other? I'm currently leaning toward FusionReactor -- it seems cleaner and easier to use.  It is, of course, a bit more expensive.  Is it worth the extra money? For reference, I'm running CF8 Standard on Win2k3 R2. --Ben Doom

Ben - the integrated server monitor in CF8 was not enough to figure out the errors? (from the admin, check out server monitor on the left) I have FusionReactor on CF7 Ent, and I agree it is much cleaner than the demo I tried of SeeFusion.  I have never had a problem with it. Chris Peterson Gainey IT Adobe Certified Advanced Coldfusion Developer I'm about to invest in one of these, and I'm looking for advice and/or practical experience.  We have several applications running, and we're trying to hunt down the source of site slowdowns.  Is there an overriding reason to pick one over the other? I'm currently leaning toward FusionReactor -- it seems cleaner and easier to use.  It is, of course, a bit more expensive.  Is it worth the extra money? For reference, I'm running CF8 Standard on Win2k3 R2. --Ben Doom

The Server Monitor doesn't ship with CF8 Standard, hence why Ben is looking at alternatives. Andy ps Fusion Reactor gets my nod ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Eep, sorry, my bad =) Chris Peterson Gainey IT Adobe Certified Advanced Coldfusion Developer The Server Monitor doesn't ship with CF8 Standard, hence why Ben is looking at alternatives. Andy ps Fusion Reactor gets my nod > Ben - the integrated server monitor in CF8 was not enough to figure out > the errors? (from the admin, check out server monitor on the left) > > I have FusionReactor on CF7 Ent, and I agree it is much cleaner than the ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- the ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

I don't believe that CF8 Standard comes with the server monitoring tools. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

As Andy and Morgan pointed out, CF8 standard does not come with a server monitor.  Trust me -- I'd have already been using it if standard shipped with it! Thanks for the FR nod. --Ben Doom Peterson, Chris wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

I'm biased because SeeFusion is the only product I have used, but I wholeheartedly recommend it.  (I have absolutely no affiliation with them) Unless you are simply interested in spending more money don't think SeeFusion is less of a product because it is cheaper. The latest version of SeeFusion uses a very slick Flex interface that allows constant streaming of stats among other things which I have found to be very easy to use.   The active monitoring rules E-mail me before anyone even notices the servers have a problem Where I take SeeFusion to the bank is in the database logging.  I have a separate database for my webserver stats which I aggregate via jobs every night and I can produce pretty nice trending reports at the end of the month. (I will send you an example of a report I made from SeeFusion data if you are interested) Even cooler is the API that is available to build your own monitoring interfaces using live SeeFusion data.  I have a monitor I built that shows me every spid running on the database, the NAME of the user running it, and the page of the application they are on.  I used the SeeFusion API to tie the web server info together with the database info via running spid and web server IP. Finally, I have never had a bad experience calling up for tech support. I bugged the crap out of them for a while, and they still kept answering the phones with a smile.  lol Anyway, just my 2 cents.  :) ~Brad I'm about to invest in one of these, and I'm looking for advice and/or practical experience.  We have several applications running, and we're trying to hunt down the source of site slowdowns.  Is there an overriding reason to pick one over the other?

Thanks for the advice.  See questions and comments inline. Brad Wood wrote: > I'm biased because SeeFusion is the only product I have used, but I > wholeheartedly recommend it.  (I have absolutely no affiliation with > them) Unless you are simply interested in spending more money don't > think SeeFusion is less of a product because it is cheaper. No, my preference for FusionReactor wasn't because SeeFusion was cheaper. > The latest version of SeeFusion uses a very slick Flex interface that > allows constant streaming of stats among other things which I have found > to be very easy to use. Yes.  However, the FusionReactor interface seems just as nice. > The active monitoring rules E-mail me before anyone even notices the > servers have a problem FusionReactor seems to have this as well. > Where I take SeeFusion to the bank is in the database logging.  I have a > separate database for my webserver stats which I aggregate via jobs > every night and I can produce pretty nice trending reports at the end of > the month. (I will send you an example of a report I made from SeeFusion > data if you are interested) I had difficulty understanding how I was supposed to get this running. Honestly, I didn't put much time into it. > Even cooler is the API that is available to build your own monitoring > interfaces using live SeeFusion data.  I have a monitor I built that > shows me every spid running on the database, the NAME of the user > running it, and the page of the application they are on.  I used the > SeeFusion API to tie the web server info together with the database info > via running spid and web server IP. Fair enough.  I'm not sure I'd use that, though.  But it is a damn nifty feature. > Finally, I have never had a bad experience calling up for tech support. > I bugged the crap out of them for a while, and they still kept answering > the phones with a smile.  lol This is IMHO a great recommendation.  Service is very important to me. --Ben Doom

One other thing you might want to consider is the licensing. The last time I checked SeeFusion and FusionReactor were licensed in different ways. A SeeFusion license had to be purchased for each instance of ColdFusion running on the server.  Whereas, one FusionReactor license was used per server (not instance). This locked in FusionReactor for us.  At the time, FusionReactor cost us a little of $700 with a year update subscription.  To do the same with SeeFusion we figured out our costs to be over $3000. Of course licensing may have changed since then (almost a year ago), but I'm happy with FusionReactor.  Within 45 minutes of installing it, we found what was randomly crashing our server.  A user found out how to fudge a url to pull down massive amounts of data.  We corrected the code and booted the user.  This after 4 weeks of trying to find the problem. Steve Thanks for the advice.  See questions and comments inline. Brad Wood wrote: > I'm biased because SeeFusion is the only product I have used, but I > wholeheartedly recommend it.  (I have absolutely no affiliation with > them) Unless you are simply interested in spending more money don't > think SeeFusion is less of a product because it is cheaper. No, my preference for FusionReactor wasn't because SeeFusion was cheaper. > The latest version of SeeFusion uses a very slick Flex interface that > allows constant streaming of stats among other things which I have found > to be very easy to use. Yes.  However, the FusionReactor interface seems just as nice. > The active monitoring rules E-mail me before anyone even notices the > servers have a problem FusionReactor seems to have this as well. > Where I take SeeFusion to the bank is in the database logging.  I have a > separate database for my webserver stats which I aggregate via jobs > every night and I can produce pretty nice trending reports at the end of > the month. (I will send you an example of a report I made from SeeFusion > data if you are interested) I had difficulty understanding how I was supposed to get this running. Honestly, I didn't put much time into it. > Even cooler is the API that is available to build your own monitoring > interfaces using live SeeFusion data.  I have a monitor I built that > shows me every spid running on the database, the NAME of the user > running it, and the page of the application they are on.  I used the > SeeFusion API to tie the web server info together with the database info > via running spid and web server IP. Fair enough.  I'm not sure I'd use that, though.  But it is a damn nifty feature. > Finally, I have never had a bad experience calling up for tech support. > I bugged the crap out of them for a while, and they still kept answering > the phones with a smile.  lol This is IMHO a great recommendation.  Service is very important to me. --Ben Doom

> I'm about to invest in one of these, and I'm looking for > advice and/or practical experience.  We have several > applications running, and we're trying to hunt down the > source of site slowdowns.  Is there an overriding reason to > pick one over the other? Not really. I've used them both, and like them both. For what it's worth, I prefer SeeFusion for troubleshooting and FusionReactor for monitoring. > I'm currently leaning toward FusionReactor -- it seems > cleaner and easier to use.  It is, of course, a bit more > expensive.  Is it worth the extra money? They are both inexpensive enough that if you prefer one to the other, you should get it. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ Fig Leaf Software provides the highest caliber vendor-authorized instruction at our training centers in Washington DC, Atlanta, Chicago, Baltimore, Northern Virginia, or on-site at your location. Visit http://training.figleaf.com/ for more information!

Actually, the SeeFusion pricing is a little different then that.   http://www.seefusion.com/index.cfm?do=c.whatsnew The last item on this page details their 2 for 1 pricing model. ================== New 2-for-1 pricing model for individual servers For any single physical server, every 2 ColdFusion instances that you want to monitor now require just 1 SeeFusion license. So for a server with 4 ColdFusion instances that you want to monitor, you'd need 2 SeeFusion licenses. Or, for 2 physical servers each with 2 ColdFusion instances you want to monitor, you'd also still only need 2 SeeFusion licenses.   ================== ~Brad A SeeFusion license had to be purchased for each instance of ColdFusion running on the server.  Whereas, one FusionReactor license was used per server (not instance).

Even with that change to the licensing, that still costs more than Fusion Reactor when you have 6 CF instances on one box.  1 Fusion Reactor License or 3 SeeFusion licenses. Actually, the SeeFusion pricing is a little different then that.   http://www.seefusion.com/index.cfm?do=c.whatsnew The last item on this page details their 2 for 1 pricing model. ================== New 2-for-1 pricing model for individual servers For any single physical server, every 2 ColdFusion instances that you want to monitor now require just 1 SeeFusion license. So for a server with 4 ColdFusion instances that you want to monitor, you'd need 2 SeeFusion licenses. Or, for 2 physical servers each with 2 ColdFusion instances you want to monitor, you'd also still only need 2 SeeFusion licenses.   ================== ~Brad A SeeFusion license had to be purchased for each instance of ColdFusion running on the server.  Whereas, one FusionReactor license was used per server (not instance).

Regardless, I currently have one instance on one server.  So licensing structure isn't a big deal. --Ben Doom DURETTE, STEVEN J (ATTASIAIT) wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----