On 11 October 2013 11:28, Valérian Saliou <[email protected]> wrote: > Our server implementation (courtesy of Marco Cirillo aka Maranda) is also > working well in production environment, with more than 300 unique users > simultaneously using the module (and much more over a larger timespan).
How is memory usage? If I recall you were storing each user's archive entirely in memory. > Our > server module has been coded from scratch, we considered the Prosody MAM > module as too performance scratching for production and large-scale > environments (as it serializes the whole message stanza before storing it as > an XML/Lua object in DB and then unserialize it to send it back on retrieval > - where on our side we only store the body and some critical information). MAM explicitly allows you to do this is you want. I'll defend Prosody not only storing the body by default, as I think people would like to preserve various extensions (off the top of my head: XHTML-IM, chat markers, security labels, signatures...). I don't think either you nor anyone on the Prosody team has done any benchmarks on our stanza storage API yet, so judging performance just because you think it will be slow isn't a valid technical argument :) In any case, rest assured that we'll be doing benchmarks before the 0.10 release that this is targeted at, to be sure we do have the most efficient storage solution for MAM archives. >> Also in my todo queue are updates related to message hints. After >> deletion and hints are in, I think we're ready to push for draft! Having had time to think about it now, and considering the general consensus forming in this thread, I'm not sure deletion is going to get in. A new XEP perhaps if you want to attempt it :) Regards, Matthew
