I'm pretty sure by "front" he doesn't mean startup, so much as he means
the public "front-end" areas, as opposed to the back-end mail and data
maintenance.
--Ben
dan martin wrote:
>>Definitely faster than 5 and can handle more. I've been on 7 since sept. and
>>I've noticed a definite performanc
On Feb 8, 2005, at 5:45 PM, dan martin wrote:
>> Definitely faster than 5 and can handle more. I've been on 7 since
>> sept. and
>> I've noticed a definite performance increase. Looking at my server
>> numbers,
>> I'm seeing a small performance hit but that's probably due to the 50+
>> concurren
>Definitely faster than 5 and can handle more. I've been on 7 since sept. and
>I've noticed a definite performance increase. Looking at my server numbers,
>I'm seeing a small performance hit but that's probably due to the 50+
>concurrent connections at the moment. Even with that, I'm seeing a
>140m
a have any plans to benchmarking the two?
>
> Thanks,
>
> John
>
>
>
> From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tue 2/8/2005 2:49 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: performance numbers for mx7 vs 6 vs 5?
>
>
&g
PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 2/8/2005 2:49 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: performance numbers for mx7 vs 6 vs 5?
Definitely faster than 5 and can handle more. I've been on 7 since sept. and
I've noticed a definite performance increase. Looking at my server numbers,
I'm seeing a small performance
Definitely faster than 5 and can handle more. I've been on 7 since sept. and
I've noticed a definite performance increase. Looking at my server numbers,
I'm seeing a small performance hit but that's probably due to the 50+
concurrent connections at the moment. Even with that, I'm seeing a
140ms-250
6 matches
Mail list logo
