On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Bernd Fondermann <bf_...@brainlounge.de> wrote: > Eric MacAdie wrote: >> I do not mean to rain on anyone's parade, but I do have one concern. I >> am running James on a VPS host with about 256 MB of memory, and right >> now James uses about 50 MB or so. I noticed from >> http://people.apache.org/builds/james/nightly/bin/ that the Spring >> version is twice as big as the Phoenix/Avalon version. I do not have a >> lot of memory to spare on my VPS account, and I would prefer not to >> upgrade (I am looking for a job and money is tight). >> >> If James with Spring slows stuff down, I may have to look for something >> else to handle email. Maybe I am making a big deal out of nothing, but a >> cursory glance makes it appear that size may be an issue. Other than >> that: +1 > > You are touching 3 different topics here: > - runtime speed > - RAM footprint > - disk footprint > > Spring adds significantly to the disk footprint, but not neccessarily to > the RAM footprint. In fact, only some core stuff of Spring is used. > Recent releases of Spring provide more fine grained modules, so the disk > footprint probably could be reduced quite a bit. > > I'd expect runtime speed to be exactly the same, because both containers > only boot the components and step aside after bootstrapping.
the james 3.x is a much bigger beast than 2.x memory wise but spring has very little to do with it - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscr...@james.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-h...@james.apache.org
