Cool, yesterday night I was thinking the same, this discussion makes no sense at all. :)
2010/8/15 Nikos Balkanas <nbalka...@gmail.com>: > Juan, > > I am sorry, I don't have time for more of this. I stand by my results as I > gave them, and if you have something better to share, please do. Otherwise I > think it is high time to wrap it up. > > BR, > Nikos > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Juan Nin" <jua...@gmail.com> > To: <users@kannel.org> > Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 2:30 AM > Subject: Re: Kannel profermance > > >> We're not saying if it's typical or not typical, we're saying exactly >> that, that it all depends A LOT on your hardware and architecture >> configuration. >> Such environments may not be typical for a single user who is just >> doing some basic stuff, or for a small company or others, but it is >> very typical for any decent company who has high traffic volume and >> doesn't risk their business with low end hardware. >> >> As we all know in the list, there are MANY Telco's out there which use >> Kannel on their infrastrucures, among them Telefonica which is one of >> the biggest of the world. I have never seen anyone on the list >> mentioning he works on any carrier, and most are probably not allowed >> to do so and say "hey, we use Kannel", but we all know lots of >> carriers use Kannel at least on parts of their infrastructure. And I >> can't imagine those big carriers using just a low end server... >> >> Maybe the biggest Kannel user base corresponds to those carriers, just >> that they don't participate on the list, or they just don't mention >> it... so if that's the case, then the typical Kannel usage is not the >> one we mostly see on the list... >> >> This is all possibilities, of course, but you get the point. What >> started the discussion is not if the numbers you gave are the ones the >> "normal user" may encounter, which maybe it's possible. What we're >> saying is that it doesn't mean that they are the max or whatever >> numbers that Kannel can handle, which is what someone could think from >> you original statement. >> >> On X environment, with X server and X tests, it gave X results. That's >> fine. >> But saying that results will always be similar, or that the proportion >> of MOs it can handle will be X% of the MTs, etc, etc, is not >> reasonable. >> That's on _your_ case, with _your_ server configurations, and with >> _your_ Kannel configurations. >> Other can vary a lot. >> >> Regards, >> >> Juan >> >> >> >> 2010/8/14 Nikos Balkanas <nbalka...@gmail.com>: >>> >>> Again, I just replied to a user asking about typical conditions. Some of >>> the >>> exotic things that Alex mentioned, like RAID or solid-state fs or >>> clustered >>> DBs are not considered typical, and are hardly what the user was asking >>> for >>> (else he would have mentioned them). Nevertrheless, it would be >>> interesting >>> to get some figures on these setups too, so that people can now the real >>> benefit before spending a lot of money on them. >>> >>> Disagreeing is all democratic. Doing it responsibly and not being a >>> nillihist is a matter of choice. >> > > -- Juan Nin 3Cinteractive / Mobilizing Great Brands http://www.3cinteractive.com
