Return-Path: 
 <user-return-10414-apmail-geronimo-user-archive=geronimo.apache.org@geronimo.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-user-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 37160 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2008 01:14:21 -0000
Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2)
  by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 2 Jun 2008 01:14:21 -0000
Received: (qmail 70590 invoked by uid 500); 2 Jun 2008 01:14:22 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-user-archive@geronimo.apache.org
Received: (qmail 70564 invoked by uid 500); 2 Jun 2008 01:14:22 -0000
Mailing-List: contact user-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
list-help: <mailto:user-help@geronimo.apache.org>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:user-unsubscribe@geronimo.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:user@geronimo.apache.org>
Reply-To: user@geronimo.apache.org
List-Id: <user.geronimo.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list user@geronimo.apache.org
Received: (qmail 70548 invoked by uid 99); 2 Jun 2008 01:14:22 -0000
Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 01 Jun 2008 18:14:22 -0700
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0
	tests=SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of kevan.miller@gmail.com
 designates 74.125.46.29 as permitted sender)
Received: from [74.125.46.29] (HELO yw-out-2324.google.com) (74.125.46.29)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 Jun 2008 01:13:32 +0000
Received: by yw-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 2so363901ywt.85
        for <user@geronimo.apache.org>; Sun, 01 Jun 2008 18:13:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references:x-mailer;
        bh=fR4vzahyctu3Rm0npI7YPlEwwzdfG/y8vRamxNu7FwM=;
        b=QTFBktNG1ezbWyeLDF99stfI5azzN6WlV8mYNGMqJqZkhpQ3QcoTEpJhZpdS9eSLO5tYXAmPo9xm0JcQQxKfqhro3hcLprLd6TFUDXuyCt+a1uN1IWeB+v9sAIz9LRNwCtviv/4ZIRzXM3Q8aCECAg7D7UCKoHHrG6VsoliunLs=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references:x-mailer;
        b=jOVqq5GaCKv4ZCJPI6Gls7ikbEhQjKJ2dcrwUMKK329jdBu4931qSfV3NF3epP+d++OpFQo0FIPATvqRTvS8id5ve1KdO7IMEwV4xfSxLO90KdolZMJiahcyBTGbbDX9XqViyRi2No+e2F6jRSl64HJiVO4VBdlP6C1+0gKtNm0=
Received: by 10.151.114.9 with SMTP id r9mr3589408ybm.118.1212369228732;
        Sun, 01 Jun 2008 18:13:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?10.0.1.186? ( [65.190.205.55])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 6sm4061601ywc.8.2008.06.01.18.13.47
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5);
        Sun, 01 Jun 2008 18:13:47 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <CC37577D-1778-4498-BAAC-12E9D7F7636F@gmail.com>
From: Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com>
To: user@geronimo.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <17580733.post@talk.nabble.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v924)
Subject: Re: reason to use the geronimo
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 21:13:46 -0400
References: <17577359.post@talk.nabble.com>
 <9C4614EC-B5B6-4C8C-B884-6F6685A15348@gmail.com>
 <17580733.post@talk.nabble.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.924)
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org


On May 31, 2008, at 7:34 PM, Wilbert Ribeiro wrote:

<snip>

>
> Hi kevan, thanks for you response, but you know say if the  
> performance,
> memory consumption, pool management, security and response time of the
> geronimo is compared to its competitors?

Hi Wilbert,
Here's a pointer to the latest performance report on Geronimo, that  
I'm aware of

http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/performance/geronimo/2.0/Geronimo2.0.2PerformanceReport-v01draft.pdf

This report isn't really a "competitive" comparison. So, I doubt that  
it will answer your questions.

There is also http://people.apache.org/~hogstrom/Geronimo-1.1.1-PerformanceReport.pdf
Which is an older study. However, it did include comparisons to a  
"Performance Target", which was a based on measurements of a number of  
unnamed app servers (proprietary and open source). Geronimo was  
compared to the best result in each category.

--kevan