users@glassfish.java.net

Re: Websphere vs Glassfish

From: Radim Kolar <hsn_at_sendmail.cz>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 08:36:36 +0200

Dne 13.10.2011 18:30, Leonardo napsal(a):
>
> I disagree about stability, only old releases with great fixpacks
> lists (therefore forget JEE6 for the moment) can say that.
>
Of course, usually people are using websphere - 2 major versions in
production. websphere is amazing piece of software.

In every glassfish version, i have stability problems. V2 was uber junk
with big memory leaks, V3 is better but it is still easy to kill it with
denial of service attack. Same app on websphere survives everything.

Open source app servers:

Jboss - avoid if possible for new projects, really bad web console, not
compatible. Use only if you are jboss shop. Not very stable, often
memory leaks , great documentation and community. Sometimes do not even
works out-of-box after install.

geronimo - really good stability, but classloading suck so much, you
need several days to get app running, i was not able to run some WARs
due to stupid classloading at all. Console has really good monitoring
and debugging tools. Bad documentation. NO UPDATE even between minor
versions, reinstall entire app server is must. Included active mq broker
is really very unstable but kinda fast. Its number 1 cause of server
crashes.

glassfish - server monitoring sucks, but GUI for cluster management is
great help, almost all WARs runs out of box. update tool is really nice
stuff, performance is better then geronimo, stability is not very good,
scheduled restarts are required for improving server health. so-so
documentation, almost no community outside Sun fanclub. some things are
really difficult to find, people needs to blog about this more often.
Easier administration then jboss or geronimo. Usually people needs 1 day
to setup app in geronimo (if they don't have experience with that app in
G) and 1/2 hour in glassfish including glassfish installation. Best
option for J2EE starters. NO FREEBSD SUPPORT for update tool.

OpenMQ is broker is so-so. Performance is 30-50% worse then activemq but
stability is better. Problem is that queue size is openmq is limited by
server memory, no swap to disk. We currently use it but only because
other OSS JMS brokers sucks even more. It tends to hang for long time if
messages are not consumed for a while. Sadly all opensource JMS brokers
are kind crap, i am not talking about performance but about stability.
For message broker stability is #1.