On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 2:27 AM, Jim Van Meggelen <[email protected]> wrote: > Dave Donovan wrote: >> >> Personally, I'd be less interested in which processors do what than >> seeing how things scale with processor power. >> > You mean how things behave at the limit?
No, I'm thinking about if 2GB ram and 4 Ghz gives me 150 conference channels, does 4GB and 8Ghz give me 300 channels or more, or less? The advantage of using a VM host is that you could adjust processor and memory with a few key clicks and re-run your automated test. >> >> Are there still significant timing issues with Vmware? If that can be >> overcome there are some serious advantages to using it as a test >> platform. You can dial the CPU and memory up and down on demand. >> Would that be beneficial or would it just muddy the waters? >> > > It would both muddy the waters and be beneficial :-p It would certainly be interesting, but the more I think of it, the more I think that we're as likely to to be limited by some quirk of the virtualization platform than of the software we're actually testing. It looks like Bill has a good platform that would get to the heart of the original question which I understand as "Is it currently possible to use a general purpose processor in a large scale conferencing bridge approaching 1000 channels, or is hardware DSP required?" On that note, there should be some agreement on exactly what premise or configurations are to be tested/proven. Dave --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
