Turning the presence off did the trick, although it would be important (to me, at least) to understand why as it changes the performance significantly.
Is the presence mechanism waiting for some response from the network? I’m assuming it’s waiting on something external because I couldn’t find any CPU activity… _____ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anthony Minessale Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 12:55 AM To: freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] Performance bottleneck 9996 is not a good test extension because it does not generate any audio unless it gets some. 9998 that generates a tone or make up an ext that plays a file is a better one. Processing of the sip calls can be delayed by the presence stuff which is very intensive, you can try turning it off and see if you get more calls. Also you should compare it to what happens with the test exten first in the dial plan. On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:58 AM, UV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm trying to determine the FS resource bottleneck when operating under load (in windows environment), but can't get the FS to load for some unseen reason. FS environment (a weak PC on purpose): CPU 2x Intel Pentium 4 3GHz RAM 2x 512MB DDR II RAM Chipset - Intel E7221 (Copper River) chipset ICH6R + FWH + BCM5721 LAN 1x Broadcom Giga LAN Windows 2003 Server – Service pack 2 FS version 9235 Running Release build on highest priority Load script: A different machine running sipP Running rtp_echo load, 50 cps, limit of 1000 calls, 30sec call duration, extension 9996 (echo test): sipp -rtp_echo -r 50 -l 1000 -d 30000 -s 9996 -sf auc.xml -mp 25000 -i 192.168.1.1 -mi 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.2 Results: Test ran for 9.5 hours Total of 48828 calls - all successful No timeouts, retransmissions or unexpected messages. Peak was 1003 calls after 4563 seconds (actual 0.2 cps) Total of 1448750 RTP packets Average response time: 11min 21 seconds CPU usage 8% ~ 21%. Average 11%. Memory usage: Started with 26,000KB RAM, 27,660KB VM, 25 threads Peak at 136,000KB RAM,,367,004KB VM, 1024 threads Ended with 88,220KB RAM, 141,684KB VM, 24 threads Disk usage wasn't monitored. My question is what is slowing the response time so much but keeps the CPU running low? NB Following Patrick Grondin's post from 17-Jul-08, I intentionally didn't change the default dialplan as I'm trying to load up the CPU. _______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org -- Anthony Minessale II FreeSWITCH http://www.freeswitch.org/ ClueCon http://www.cluecon.com/ AIM: anthm MSN:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GTALK/JABBER/PAYPAL:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> IRC: irc.freenode.net #freeswitch FreeSWITCH Developer Conference sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> iax:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/888 googletalk:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pstn:213-799-1400 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.1/1605 - Release Date: 11/08/2008 16:59
_______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
