|
»
»
« Return to Thread: Benchmark results -- follow-up
Re: Benchmark results -- follow-up
by raulvk
::
Rate this Message:
Hi Ross,
Thank you for your answer. I think that the Mule configuration that the WSO2 people used during the benchmark is available here: http://wso2.org/repos/wso2/trunk/commons/performance/esb/mule-1.4.1/.
Could you have someone from your team look at it and let us know your findings? I am very interested in learning your views. To be honest, I think it is important that you do pronounce yourself as soon as possible if the configuration that was used was not optimal, because I'm sure there are many people who've been discouraged to have a further look at Mule due to the inferior results that it achieved on the benchmark (in our case, we were a bit reluctant, since transformation and keepalive connections are imperative in our project).
I'll be looking forward to hearing from you guys. You may contact me at raulvk [ at ] gmail [ dot ] com, if you prefer to speak in private. In the meantime, we will give Mule a test-drive for ourselves.
Thank you very much,
Raul.
Thank you for your answer. I think that the Mule configuration that the WSO2 people used during the benchmark is available here: http://wso2.org/repos/wso2/trunk/commons/performance/esb/mule-1.4.1/.
Could you have someone from your team look at it and let us know your findings? I am very interested in learning your views. To be honest, I think it is important that you do pronounce yourself as soon as possible if the configuration that was used was not optimal, because I'm sure there are many people who've been discouraged to have a further look at Mule due to the inferior results that it achieved on the benchmark (in our case, we were a bit reluctant, since transformation and keepalive connections are imperative in our project).
I'll be looking forward to hearing from you guys. You may contact me at raulvk [ at ] gmail [ dot ] com, if you prefer to speak in private. In the meantime, we will give Mule a test-drive for ourselves.
Thank you very much,
Raul.
Ross Mason-3 wrote:Hi,
Don't forget you are getting your information for a platform that
wants to compete with Mule :) We were never able to run the benchmarks
with the information provided since it's unclear how they ran each
platform. If fact they never originally published the benchmark code,
but I see now it's available since Feb 11th.
The issue they had with keep alive is a configuration error as far as
I can see, and Mule has supported web service proxying for years.
My suggestion is to take the two projects for a test drive if you are
unsure. I think you'll like Mule. Mule has been running in
production environments (including high-performance messaging) for
over 4 years now. It's been battle-tested more that any other open
and closed-source ESB, and provides more functionality out of the box
than the others.
As for defending Mule, it does a very good job of defending itself;
just take it for a test drive.
btw, I'll ask our QA guys to see if there has been enough detail about
this benchmark published so that we could run it. If so we will
happily publish real results for Mule.
Cheers,
Ross Mason
CTO, Co-Founder
MuleSource Inc.
http://mulesource.com | http://blog.rossmason.com
On 9 Apr 2008, at 09:25, raulvk wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We are evaluating different options for Open Source ESBs and have come
> across the WSO2 benchmark results, which puts Mule in a terrible
> position.
> However, we haven't been able to find any strong counter-comments
> from the
> people who develop Mule.
>
> Therefore, we have a few questions remaining:
> 1) have the bugs found by the WSO2 team been repaired? How come they
> hadn't been encountered before running the benchmarks? They are pretty
> serious problems, it seems.
> 2) has performance been improved since the results were published?
>
> Anyway, I would appreciate some insight as to why the Mule community
> has
> made no move to defend their product, except for the following on the
> benchmark page itself:
>
>
>
>> Mule configuration help?
>> Submitted by ciurana on July 19, 2007 - 06:23.
>>
>> Hi Asankha!
>>
>> Interesting results -- thanks for performing the tests.
>>
>> May I ask how well do you know how to configure Mule? Some of the
>> testing
>> issues that you're having sound like configuration and setup issues,
>> rather than Mule problems. Can you please post the Mule XML
>> configuration
>> file so that we can take a look? Please annotate the file with
>> "objective
>> was X, we did Y, got Z instead" comments. It may be that the
>> configuration
>> you have set up could be optimized.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> E
>>
>
> Thanks in advance for your insights.
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Benchmark-results----follow-up-tp16590538p16590538.html
> Sent from the Mule - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
>
> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
« Return to Thread: Benchmark results -- follow-up
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
