;
> - Original Message -
> From: "Gaston Dombiak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 3:38 PM
> Subject: RE: MINA's scalability
>
>
> > Hey Bogdan,
> >
> > You should be just fine using MINA. We are using MI
I'm curious to know how you hit 170k in a VM. Did you have multiple open
listeners to get around the 64k port limitation? Thanks!
Mike
- Original Message -
From: "Gaston Dombiak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 3:38 PM
Subject: RE: MINA
On 10/27/07, Bogdan Ciprian Pistol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Gato,
>
> > You should be just fine using MINA. We are using MINA in Openfire and so
> > far we got up to 170K concurrent connections in a single JVM.
>
> Thank you for responding so quickly,
>
> Because MINA can handle 170K connect
Hi Gato,
> You should be just fine using MINA. We are using MINA in Openfire and so
> far we got up to 170K concurrent connections in a single JVM.
Thank you for responding so quickly,
Because MINA can handle 170K connections (which is more than enough
for me) I will use MINA for my project. I'm
: dev@mina.apache.org
Subject: MINA's scalability
Hello,
I would like to use Apache MINA for building a server that should scale
well.
The server will publish data to lots of clients (around 30 000).
The majority of these connections will be active a few hours. The data
being sent to the clients
Hello,
I would like to use Apache MINA for building a server that should scale well.
The server will publish data to lots of clients (around 30 000).
The majority of these connections will be active a few hours. The data
being sent to the clients is small but at a high frequency (500-1000
millise
