I think uh-nu-bu is trying to point out that it's the client side that is slow. Does Zimbra employ any caching schemes (like Google Maps)?
Perhaps their is a client related thread that discusses these issues?
HTTPS Is Working, HTTP Not Working
-
14319KevinH
- Ambassador
- Posts: 4558
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2014 9:52 pm
HTTPS Is Working, HTTP Not Working
[quote user="elguapo"]I think uh-nu-bu is trying to point out that it's the client side that is slow. Does Zimbra employ any caching schemes (like Google Maps)?
Perhaps their is a client related thread that discusses these issues?[/QUOTE]
We do some caching. The next release may be a little better. We've got some good ideas on how to improve even more and you'll see that work show up in future releases.
Perhaps their is a client related thread that discusses these issues?[/QUOTE]
We do some caching. The next release may be a little better. We've got some good ideas on how to improve even more and you'll see that work show up in future releases.
HTTPS Is Working, HTTP Not Working
Thanks Elguapo. That is indeed what I was saying. I see the same things in Google Maps as I do with Zimbra, so I don't think it is a Zimbra thing. I think, compared to a fat client like Outlook, an AJAX client is just going to be a bit slower--especially when using imap instead of mapi.
I do think it will scale better--an equivalent Zimbra system seems like it would be slower in general (even on my jacked up pc it seems about 10-20% slower than Outlook), but stay the same speed under twice the load (on the server) that would start showing drastic speed issues on an Outlook/Exchange setup. Plus, it should not have any of the problems Exchange setups exhibit--file system corruption, logging commit problems, fragmented database, message store size limits, croaking on large attachments, etc. ad nauseum. Don't get me wrong--Exchange+Outlook rocks for small to medium setups as a groupware solution. Expensive, but very nice. Zimbra, however, has the possibility to easily surpass it in features and #users per setup.
Zimbra looks like it will scale better horizontally too. Adding another server to a Zimbra "cluster" looks easy and would allow another 1-3,000 users pronto.
I do think it will scale better--an equivalent Zimbra system seems like it would be slower in general (even on my jacked up pc it seems about 10-20% slower than Outlook), but stay the same speed under twice the load (on the server) that would start showing drastic speed issues on an Outlook/Exchange setup. Plus, it should not have any of the problems Exchange setups exhibit--file system corruption, logging commit problems, fragmented database, message store size limits, croaking on large attachments, etc. ad nauseum. Don't get me wrong--Exchange+Outlook rocks for small to medium setups as a groupware solution. Expensive, but very nice. Zimbra, however, has the possibility to easily surpass it in features and #users per setup.
Zimbra looks like it will scale better horizontally too. Adding another server to a Zimbra "cluster" looks easy and would allow another 1-3,000 users pronto.