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" <jua...@gmail.com>
To: <users@kannel.org>
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 <jua...@gmail.com> wrote:
2010/8/13 Nikos Balkanas <nbalka...@gmail.com>:
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
