Asankha your comments fairly look baised. While we could not test close to a million transactions in a day ( did not have full day available) but We have tested Mule with close to a 100000 transactions in 4-5 hours and it performed fanstatically. Our configurations of course may not be optimal as we were still fine tuning our system. The WSO2 results have been published by they themselves and they are simply another competitor in the same space. To get a true analysis, it would have to be done by a third party nuetral company.
The fact that WSO2 is basically trying to bench mark against mule suggests in iteslf that WSO2 acknowledges that Mule may be "The Standard" to beat. Better to go with the "The Standard" I guess.
ddossot wrote:
Asankha,
I am also very interested to see that Mule actually contains
code<
http://svn.codehaus.org/mule/trunk/mule/transports/file/src/main/java/org/mule/providers/file/transformers/FileToByteArray.java>to
recover even from a Java OOM
> Exception<
http://java.sun.com/javase/6/webnotes/trouble/TSG-VM/html/gdaog.html#gbzrr>?
> I guess this validates your ability to run in production environments for
> over 4 years now :-)?
>
You realize that this kind of statement does not serve the purpose of this
discussion. A smiley at the end of it does not make it acceptable either.
You should also realize that what is at stake here is not Mule's credibility
but the credibility of a benchmark run by a particular vendor that makes it
pass with flying colors. There is a long history of such benchmarks and
nothing satisfying never came out of them, at least as far as the end users
are concerned.
As an end user, I would rather see you guys, and other ESB vendors, engage a
neutral and trusted 3rd party to run such a benchmark. This would help
making this discussion less sterile and hopefully more professional.
Thank you,
David
