So you're saying that on any server and/or architecture the results will be the same? Doesn't seem very reasonable...
2010/8/14 Nikos Balkanas <[email protected]>: > Actually you have missed a couple of more emails. On fakesmpp submission I > also posted results from a low-end Solaris 10 64bit box. Very similar to the > results posted from the linux server. The averages seem pretty solid. So, > contrary to your beliefs, it is not giving out the wrong impression. > > BR, > Nikos > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Juan Nin" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 4:33 AM > Subject: Re: Kannel profermance > > >> Ok, just saw on another thread where you got those values from, but >> again, that's very system specific. >> >> I guess you point was just to say that Kannel was not the issue for >> his bottleneck, but saying "It can handle ~1000 MO/s, 750 MT/s >> (internal DLRs) or 450 MT/s (DB DLRs)" may give the wrong impression >> that that's the maximum it can handle, or that it can always handle >> that load, while on low end servers it may not. >> >> So saying something like that in that way can confuse new users, IMHO. >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Juan Nin <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> 2010/8/13 Nikos Balkanas <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>> It is unlikely that kannel is your bottleneck. It can handle ~1000 MO/s, >>>> 750 >>>> MT/s (internal DLRs) or 450 MT/s (DB DLRs). >>> >>> >>> Just curious to know where do you get those values from... >>> What Kannel supports depends on your hardware and architecture >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Juan Nin >> 3Cinteractive / Mobilizing Great Brands >> http://www.3cinteractive.com >> > > -- Juan Nin 3Cinteractive / Mobilizing Great Brands http://www.3cinteractive.com
