Speaking of things distributed, storage, and i/o in general, is another issue, I find that * performs worst and worst with better raid configurations, specially scuzzy. So much so I think from now on I'll put a regular single drive in all my gateways. Anyone have the same experience here?
On 3/3/06, Shidan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike and Mike are both right. For any * purpose given the same setup a > dual processor will always work better, festival, the tcp stack, agi > forking, ........... ,the list goes on and on, can take advantage of > the extra cpu to do lots of good work. Actually even Asterisk works > MUCH better on a dual processor. As far as codecs go its threaded just > fine. The only problems are its main thread which do all the cleanup, > and the actual transport stacks, which are being worked on, at least > for IAX as the posting. With more CPUs, in many cases, the actually > quality of the call will increase, not just the number of calls you > can handle. > > Echo can. and trancoding (voice not protocols) are inherently costly, > and software is still not the best place for them, thats why good > cards still matter (thats not really why good cards matter in * > because neither Digiums or Sangomas do this yet and for the cards that > do, none of those things have been interfaced with zaptel yet). But > good cards still do matter with *!! > > As far as whats needed to make * work effectively, a sangoma card on > a P4 can handle 200 calls/second, with no transcoding. > > On 3/3/06, Reza - Asterisk Enthusiast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Michael C. > > > > Mike is right with regards to dual proc. running Asterisk. Mike however > > handles HEAVY volume of calls which involves transcoding & a bunch of other > > features. > > > > I love to have the added horse power, but I always love to use less powerful > > machines to try to push the limits of Linux & Asterisk. Let me provide > > you my bench mark tests and you can judge for yourself. I think it really > > comes down to how many calls are being processed. > > > > Recently on a friends box in Ottawa (an AMD 1 Ghz. 512 megs ram ) we have > > handled an exact total of 10 callers connected to his Asterisk. Myself & > > him, his relatives & friends from overseas. Out of that, 4 people were > > using different codecs... so obviously transcoding was going on. > > > > Added to this we added call monitoring to record ALL our 10 conversations > > for fun sake. After a pair has finished their conversation, SOX was > > configured to do some processing of the GSM files. > > > > At all times we were monitoring the CPU load using TOP & the CPU load did > > not even spike! This is of course a rough test and there may be other > > variables involved. However from this preliminary recent test, I'd safely > > conclude that even if 20 people were chatting simultaneously on his AMD 1Ghz > > on 512 megs of ram... transcoding and recoding conversations... would not > > have much of an adverse effect on the CPU load. > > > > Yes both my self and my Ottawa friend are cheap :). You have to be when you > > have a family and kids to feed :). > > > > If your business can afford the extra couple of hundred dollars to few > > hundred for a Dual Proc. server, why not. You may also monitor your > > production servers CPU load and then make a better decision based on the > > estimated number of simultaneous calls. If this machine were to be your > > hobby machine, a machine that sits at home or a lab out of a production > > environment, I'd be cheap. > > > > But if the box is ultimately being used for production quality business > > purposes... the extra money... for a high speed processor and RAM is worth > > its investment, and for the peace of mind if you are unsure, the extra few > > hundred for the Dual Core is worth its investment for ones mental sanity. > > Why be stressed and unsure about something, when you know the extra > > investment will make you worry free and sleep well at night. > > > > Cheers! > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Michael Cottenden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 8:52 AM > > Subject: RE: [on-asterisk] Brainstorming dual-core and Asterisk > > > > >I am also confused by this. When I initially discussed purchasing Digium's > > > Business Edition of Asterisk, they (being Digium) recommended a dual proc > > > machine. So I purchased that, and also made sure that RedHat Enterprise 3 > > > (ES) supported the dual proc setup. > > > > > > I merely assumed that this setup would be the best for Asterisk and that > > > Asterisk could take advantage of it. I never did any research on the > > > subject. > > > > > > So, should I just be purchasing one proc machines to run Asterisk at this > > > time? I'd really like to get this cleared up, as I have to purchase > > another > > > couple of servers for other offices we are going to be setting up. If the > > > second proc is a waste today, it would certainly save some $. > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 7:20 AM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [on-asterisk] Brainstorming dual-core and Asterisk > > > > > > So running [EMAIL PROTECTED] on a dual processor P2 333 system is still a > > > waste of > > > processing power? CentOS does recognize both processors and loads the SMP > > > kernel. Is there any benefit at all? > > > > > > Peter M. > > > > > >> Maybe crazy enough that it will actually work. It amazes me sometimes > > >> what ideas u come up with!! Some related news: > > >> > > >> 1) IAX is multithreaded in head now, so should work better on dual > > >> processors than SIP, unless you're using the "other" asterisk sip > > >> stack. Also, a side benefit, silence suppression on IAX will probably > > >> come soon. > > >> > > >> On 3/2/06, Jim Van Meggelen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > Let me run something that's been floating about in my noggin by > > > everyone: > > >> > > > >> > Given that Asterisk does not make use of dual core CPUs or dual > > >> > processors, I was contemplating whether running Asterisk in two (or > > >> > more) VMWare sessions on a system might actually allow for more > > >> > total performance. For example, set up one VM to handle incoming > > >> > lines, echo cancellation and all sets, and then set up the other VM to > > > handle VoIP, including transcoding. > > >> > > > >> > A bit kludgy, to be sure, but would VMWare allow for both cores/CPUs > > >> > to be more fully utilized? > > >> > > > >> > Very possibly not practical, but it's been floating about my head > > >> > for a bit and I figured I'd send it out into the ether to see what > > >> > thoughts might come back. > > >> > > > >> > So . . . thoughts? > > >> > > > >> > Jim. > > >> > > > >> > -- > > >> > Jim Van Meggelen > > >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> > http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/2177 > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > >
