[Jboss-dev-forums] [Design of Mail Services] - Re: JBoss Mail Performance

[<aco...@jb...>]

We've done some performance testing pre-M1 but nothing recent so nothing va=
lid.  That will be a major goal of M4 is to make SpecJ happy.  Pure numbers=
 benchmarks are irrelevant because it is highly dependent on DB used, size =
of mails, hardware and network.  So the numbers are never particularly good=
 unless all variables except one are equivilent.  Needless to say, public b=
enchmarking doesn't work that way.  Since we may work with the James guys i=
n some areas, its unlikely I'll publish competitive to JAMES benchmarks jus=
t to antagonize them.  It will come down to: if you want an apache style pr=
oject with apache style support and you like or don't dislike JAMES's appro=
ach, use JAMES.  If you want the "professional open source" style support, =
like or dont' dislike our approach, use JBMS.  Likely we'll make ease of in=
stallation and ease of management a core advantage as well (not sure if the=
y're working on it).  In the end performance will be a matter of what you'r=
e able to achieve with a capital vs hardware.  We aim high and I think we'l=
l beat Exchange and Domino easily in this area (read: they're really slow a=
nd bloated).  when finished, I suspect we'll beat postfix in this area (cop=
ies stuff around alot).  We may beat others in some scenarios but its possi=
ble that a db backed mail server can't play as amusingly well in benchmarks=
 as a file backed one (even if the db backed one scales up better).  Not to=
 say we can't create "fun for benchmarks" configs but frankly it won't be s=
omething I spend any time on (only real world). =20

However, JAMES and JBMS currently have a major bottleneck: JavaMail sucks. =
 We'll need to address this.  I approached JAMES on collaboration here but =
most folks seemed disinterested in that part.  If that is the case we'll li=
kely create a LGPL reimpelmentation once we're further along.  At that poin=
t JAMES will have to reimplement as well or be left in the dust at least wh=
en running in a DB backed mode with high concurrency.=20

-Andy

View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=3Dbb&op=3Dv=
iewtopic&p=3D3886474#3886474

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=3Dbb&op=3Dpostin=
g&mode=3Dreply&p=3D3886474