[Asterisk-Users] TDM users: modified zttest.c for testing
TDM & X100P card users:
Attached is a modified zaptel/zttest.c app called "attest-mod.c". It
has been modified to report the "delay" in receiving 8,192 bytes
from the TDM card (instead of reporting a percentage). It works with
the digium x100p cards as well.
Drop the attachment in your zaptel directory and compile it with:
gcc zttest-mod.c -o zttest-mod.o
Then run the executable like this:
./zttest-mod.o -v
and report the results.
The output should look like:
8192 bytes in 1.023843 seconds
8192 bytes in 1.023866 seconds
8192 bytes in 1.023853 seconds
8192 bytes in 1.023876 seconds
8192 bytes in 1.023841 secondsr
--- Results after 5 passes ---
Best: 1.023876 -- Worst: 1.023841 -- Average: 1.023856
The design objective of the TDM (and x100p) cards was to transfer
8,192 bytes of data from the card in exactly 1.0 seconds.
The above sample indicates my system required 1.023856 seconds to
accomplish this, or 23856 microseconds too late.
Since the data transfer is to late, it implies that one frame of
data (or 1,024 bytes) will be dropped every 5.2 seconds on average
(or, one frame dropped for every 42 received).
I'm about 90% sure that's why spandsp does not function correctly
and probably impacts how well the echo canceller works in some
cases as well.
It would be very interesting to see everyone's results in running
this, and even more interesting to report the results with the OS
distro in use, mobo in use (if known), etc. If anyone actually
get's a result that is very close to 1.000 seconds, I'd really
like to know more about those systems. (email off list is fine
if you want.)
Rich
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#define SIZE 8000
static int pass = 0;
static float best = 0.0;
static float worst = 100.0;
static float total = 0.0;
void hup_handler(int sig)
{
printf("\n--- Results after %d passes ---\n", pass);
printf("Best: %f -- Worst: %f -- Average: %f\n", best, worst, pass ?
total/pass : 100.00);
exit(0);
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
int fd;
int res;
int count=0;
float ms;
int sec;
int curarg = 1;
int verbose=0;
char buf[8192];
float score;
struct timeval start, now;
fd = open("/dev/zap/pseudo", O_RDWR);
if (fd < 0) {
fprintf(stderr, "Unable to open zap interface: %s\n",
strerror(errno));
exit(1);
}
while(curarg < argc) {
if (!strcasecmp(argv[curarg], "-v"))
verbose++;
curarg++;
}
printf("Objective: to read 8192 bytes from TDM card in 1.00
seconds.\n");
printf("Opened pseudo zap interface, measuring accuracy...\n");
signal(SIGHUP, hup_handler);
signal(SIGINT, hup_handler);
/* Flush input buffer */
for (count = 0;count < 4; count++)
res = read(fd, buf, sizeof(buf));
count = 0;
gettimeofday(&start, NULL);
for(;;) {
/* res contains the number of bytes read in */
res = read(fd, buf, sizeof(buf));
if (res < 0) {
fprintf(stderr, "Failed to read from pseudo interface:
%s\n", strerror(errno));
exit(1);
}
count += res; /* count = total number of bytes read */
if (count >= SIZE) {
gettimeofday(&now, NULL);
sec = (now.tv_sec - start.tv_sec);
ms = sec + ((float)(now.tv_usec - start.tv_usec) /
100 );
start = now;
score = ms;
if (verbose)
printf("\n%d bytes in %f seconds", count, ms);
else{
printf("%f ", score);
if ((pass % 8) == 7) printf("\n");
}
if (score > best)
best = score;
if (score < worst)
worst = score;
/* printf("%f ", score); */
total += score;
fflush(stdout);
count = 0;
pass++;
}
}
}
___
Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDM users: modified zttest.c for testing
On Tuesday 03 May 2005 11:48 am, Rich Adamson wrote: > The design objective of the TDM (and x100p) cards was to transfer > 8,192 bytes of data from the card in exactly 1.0 seconds. > The above sample indicates my system required 1.023856 seconds to > accomplish this, or 23856 microseconds too late. > ... > > It would be very interesting to see everyone's results in running > this, and even more interesting to report the results with the OS > distro in use, mobo in use (if known), etc. If anyone actually > get's a result that is very close to 1.000 seconds, I'd really > like to know more about those systems. (email off list is fine > if you want.) > Results summary: Best: 1.024028 -- Worst: 1.023796 -- Average: 1.023886 Distro: FC3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] zaptel]# ./zttest-mod -v Objective: to read 8192 bytes from TDM card in 1.00 seconds. Opened pseudo zap interface, measuring accuracy... 8192 bytes in 1.023861 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023878 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023878 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023894 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023861 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023878 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023879 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023878 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023877 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023912 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023845 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023879 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023911 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023898 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.024028 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023796 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023916 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023887 seconds --- Results after 18 passes --- Best: 1.024028 -- Worst: 1.023796 -- Average: 1.023886 # uname -a Linux asterisk.productiveconcepts.com 2.6.9-1.667 #1 Tue Nov 2 14:41:25 EST 2004 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux # cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 15 model : 1 model name : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 1.50GHz stepping: 2 cpu MHz : 1483.665 cache size : 256 KB fdiv_bug: no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug: no coma_bug: no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 2 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm bogomips: 2924.54 -- Josiah Bryan IT Coordinator Productive Concepts, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (765) 964-6009, ext. 224 ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDM users: modified zttest.c for testing
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 09:48 -0600, Rich Adamson wrote: > TDM & X100P card users: > > Attached is a modified zaptel/zttest.c app called "attest-mod.c". It > has been modified to report the "delay" in receiving 8,192 bytes > from the TDM card (instead of reporting a percentage). It works with > the digium x100p cards as well. > > Drop the attachment in your zaptel directory and compile it with: > gcc zttest-mod.c -o zttest-mod.o > Then run the executable like this: > ./zttest-mod.o -v > and report the results. > > The output should look like: > 8192 bytes in 1.023843 seconds > 8192 bytes in 1.023866 seconds > 8192 bytes in 1.023853 seconds > 8192 bytes in 1.023876 seconds > 8192 bytes in 1.023841 secondsr > --- Results after 5 passes --- > Best: 1.023876 -- Worst: 1.023841 -- Average: 1.023856 > > The design objective of the TDM (and x100p) cards was to transfer > 8,192 bytes of data from the card in exactly 1.0 seconds. > The above sample indicates my system required 1.023856 seconds to > accomplish this, or 23856 microseconds too late. Isn't the design objective to read 8000 bytes in one second? The reported (roughly) 1.024 second time frame is correct for 8192 bytes. I get average numbers very close to 1.024 (especially if I take some rounding error into account). > Since the data transfer is to late, it implies that one frame of > data (or 1,024 bytes) will be dropped every 5.2 seconds on average > (or, one frame dropped for every 42 received). > > I'm about 90% sure that's why spandsp does not function correctly > and probably impacts how well the echo canceller works in some > cases as well. > > It would be very interesting to see everyone's results in running > this, and even more interesting to report the results with the OS > distro in use, mobo in use (if known), etc. If anyone actually > get's a result that is very close to 1.000 seconds, I'd really > like to know more about those systems. (email off list is fine > if you want.) ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDM users: modified zttest.c for testing
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 09:48 -0600, Rich Adamson wrote: > TDM & X100P card users: > Again much the same result:- On Mandriva Cooker but with vanilla kernel. [EMAIL PROTECTED] zaptel]# ./zttest-mod -v Objective: to read 8192 bytes from TDM card in 1.00 seconds. Opened pseudo zap interface, measuring accuracy... 8192 bytes in 1.023969 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.024003 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023982 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023993 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023989 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023994 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.024002 seconds --- Results after 7 passes --- Best: 1.024003 -- Worst: 1.023969 -- Average: 1.023990 Linux Sheriff 2.6.11 #2 Mon Mar 7 14:45:42 CET 2005 i686 AMD Duron(tm) unknown GNU/Linux processor : 0 vendor_id : AuthenticAMD cpu family : 6 model : 7 model name : AMD Duron(tm) stepping: 1 cpu MHz : 1300.286 cache size : 64 KB fdiv_bug: no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug: no coma_bug: no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 1 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 mmx fxsr sse pni syscall mmxext 3dnowext 3dnow bogomips: 2555.90 Interestingly faxes inwards work for me. -- Dave Cotton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDM users: modified zttest.c for testing
On May 3, 2005 11:48 am, Rich Adamson wrote: > TDM & X100P card users: TDM400P on a practically unkillable system (P3/700) -- this is the one with shared IRQs and heavy network traffic on that shared IRQ without any appreciable loss in audio quality: --- Results after 192 passes --- Best: 1.024003 -- Worst: 1.023921 -- Average: 1.023960 T100P on an MSI cheapo P4 mainboard (getting EAGAIN problems from time to time): --- Results after 181 passes --- Best: 1.024127 -- Worst: 1.023902 -- Average: 1.024012 TE405P in a pretty average P4 system: --- Results after 144 passes --- Best: 1.024305 -- Worst: 1.024078 -- Average: 1.024201 -A. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] TDM users: modified zttest.c for testing
Funny thing is that Faxes over IP (SIP ATA186) and Fax Over Public Internet (FOPI) have worked fine since day one. I even have faxes on DSL lines at my house working glitch free. I have been scared to 'retire' the old OS as it has worked so well. # ./zttest-mod -v Objective: to read 8192 bytes from TDM card in 1.00 seconds. Opened pseudo zap interface, measuring accuracy... 8192 bytes in 1.023890 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023900 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023900 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023899 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023900 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023900 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023901 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023900 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023898 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023901 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023900 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023900 seconds --- Results after 12 passes --- Best: 1.023901 -- Worst: 1.023890 -- Average: 1.023899 # P3/700 Compaq ML330 w/ IDE HD and Stock Mandrake 9.1 Kernel 2.4.21 328MB Ram Single CPU processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 8 model name : Pentium III (Coppermine) stepping: 6 cpu MHz : 794.721 cache size : 256 KB fdiv_bug: no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug: no coma_bug: no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 2 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 mmx fxsr sse bogomips: 1585.97 ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDM users: modified zttest.c for testing
On May 3, 2005 01:34 pm, Andrew Kohlsmith wrote: > T100P on an MSI cheapo P4 mainboard (getting EAGAIN problems from time to > time): > --- Results after 181 passes --- > Best: 1.024127 -- Worst: 1.023902 -- Average: 1.024012 And the TE405P in the exact same motherboard (swapped it out trying to get rid of EAGAIN): --- Results after 264 passes --- Best: 1.024143 -- Worst: 1.023924 -- Average: 1.024013 -A. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] TDM users: modified zttest.c for testing
I ran this test on a machine with P3/700 an got same results. See provious post. Is anyone keeping track of this??? Alex # ./zttest-mod -v Objective: to read 8192 bytes from TDM card in 1.00 seconds. Opened pseudo zap interface, measuring accuracy... 8192 bytes in 1.023984 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023999 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023999 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.024000 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.024002 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.024000 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.024000 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023998 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.024002 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.024001 seconds --- Results after 10 passes --- Best: 1.024002 -- Worst: 1.023984 -- Average: 1.023999 Compaq ML350 G3 512 MB Ram SCSI Hard Drive # more /proc/cpu* processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 15 model : 2 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.80GHz stepping: 9 cpu MHz : 2799.439 cache size : 512 KB physical id : 0 siblings: 2 fdiv_bug: no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug: no coma_bug: no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 2 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe cid bogomips: 5537.79 ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDM users: modified zttest.c for testing
This was on a DELL 750 P4, 3.2Ghz, with Digi 4 port FXO voip-gw1:/usr/src/zaptel# ./zttest-mod.o -v Objective: to read 8192 bytes from TDM card in 1.00 seconds. Opened pseudo zap interface, measuring accuracy... 8192 bytes in 1.023973 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023972 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023974 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023976 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023973 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023986 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023962 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023975 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023973 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023976 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023973 seconds --- Results after 11 passes --- Best: 1.023986 -- Worst: 1.023962 -- Average: 1.023974 Alexander Lopez wrote: I ran this test on a machine with P3/700 an got same results. See provious post. Is anyone keeping track of this??? Alex # ./zttest-mod -v Objective: to read 8192 bytes from TDM card in 1.00 seconds. Opened pseudo zap interface, measuring accuracy... 8192 bytes in 1.023984 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023999 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023999 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.024000 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.024002 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.024000 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.024000 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.023998 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.024002 seconds 8192 bytes in 1.024001 seconds --- Results after 10 passes --- Best: 1.024002 -- Worst: 1.023984 -- Average: 1.023999 Compaq ML350 G3 512 MB Ram SCSI Hard Drive # more /proc/cpu* processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 15 model : 2 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.80GHz stepping: 9 cpu MHz : 2799.439 cache size : 512 KB physical id : 0 siblings: 2 fdiv_bug: no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug: no coma_bug: no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 2 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe cid bogomips: 5537.79 ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users -- Doug Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dataflo.net DataFlo Communications LLC 311 N Walnut St, Suite 210 Wood Dale, IL 60191 phone: (630)860-4578 Fax: (630)860-5463 ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDM users: modified zttest.c for testing
I also had problem faxing with spandsp with my old server (Athlon 700 on a VIA chipset). Now I've instaled asterisk on a P4 2.8Ghz (Asus P5P800, btw great board, let's you assign the preferred interrupt for each PCI slot), with 256Mb, and here's what I get (unpatched zttest): (before I never got to 100%) [EMAIL PROTECTED] zaptel]# ./zttest -v Opened pseudo zap interface, measuring accuracy... 8192 samples in 8192 sample intervals 100.00% 8192 samples in 8192 sample intervals 100.00% 8192 samples in 8192 sample intervals 100.00% 8192 samples in 8192 sample intervals 100.00% 8192 samples in 8192 sample intervals 100.00% 8192 samples in 8192 sample intervals 100.00% 8192 samples in 8192 sample intervals 100.00% 8192 samples in 8192 sample intervals 100.00% 8192 samples in 8192 sample intervals 100.00% 8192 samples in 8192 sample intervals 100.00% 8192 samples in 8192 sample intervals 100.00% 8192 samples in 8192 sample intervals 100.00% 8192 samples in 8193 sample intervals 99.987793% 8192 samples in 8192 sample intervals 100.00% 8192 samples in 8192 sample intervals 100.00% 8192 samples in 8192 sample intervals 100.00% 8192 samples in 8192 sample intervals 100.00% 8192 samples in 8192 sample intervals 100.00% 8192 samples in 8192 sample intervals 100.00% --- Results after 19 passes --- Best: 100.00 -- Worst: 99.987793 I have yet to try spandsp, but I think i'll work without problems. Julian J. M. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDM users: modified zttest.c for testing
> On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 09:48 -0600, Rich Adamson wrote: > > TDM & X100P card users: > > > > Attached is a modified zaptel/zttest.c app called "attest-mod.c". It > > has been modified to report the "delay" in receiving 8,192 bytes > > from the TDM card (instead of reporting a percentage). It works with > > the digium x100p cards as well. > > > > Drop the attachment in your zaptel directory and compile it with: > > gcc zttest-mod.c -o zttest-mod.o > > Then run the executable like this: > > ./zttest-mod.o -v > > and report the results. > > > > The output should look like: > > 8192 bytes in 1.023843 seconds > > 8192 bytes in 1.023866 seconds > > 8192 bytes in 1.023853 seconds > > 8192 bytes in 1.023876 seconds > > 8192 bytes in 1.023841 secondsr > > --- Results after 5 passes --- > > Best: 1.023876 -- Worst: 1.023841 -- Average: 1.023856 > > > > The design objective of the TDM (and x100p) cards was to transfer > > 8,192 bytes of data from the card in exactly 1.0 seconds. > > The above sample indicates my system required 1.023856 seconds to > > accomplish this, or 23856 microseconds too late. > > Isn't the design objective to read 8000 bytes in one second? The > reported (roughly) 1.024 second time frame is correct for 8192 bytes. > > I get average numbers very close to 1.024 (especially if I take some > rounding error into account). That's a very good point. Now I'm not sure since the only thing I've got to go by is existing code in zttest.c which implies 8192, and data arrives in 1024 byte frames. I'll dig a little deeper to see if I can figure out which one _is_ correct. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDM users: modified zttest.c for testing
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 06:48 -0600, Rich Adamson wrote: > > On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 09:48 -0600, Rich Adamson wrote: > > > TDM & X100P card users: > > I get average numbers very close to 1.024 (especially if I take some > > rounding error into account). > > That's a very good point. Now I'm not sure since the only thing I've > got to go by is existing code in zttest.c which implies 8192, and > data arrives in 1024 byte frames. > > I'll dig a little deeper to see if I can figure out which one _is_ > correct. I also recommend only printing 3 decimal places for the times. All of the additional digits are just noise. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDM users: modified zttest.c for testing
> > > > TDM & X100P card users: > > > > I get average numbers very close to 1.024 (especially if I take some > > > rounding error into account). > > > > That's a very good point. Now I'm not sure since the only thing I've > > got to go by is existing code in zttest.c which implies 8192, and > > data arrives in 1024 byte frames. > > > > I'll dig a little deeper to see if I can figure out which one _is_ > > correct. > > I also recommend only printing 3 decimal places for the times. All of > the additional digits are just noise. Why do you say 3 when the os call returns 6 places? The thought process is essentially oriented around identifying timing issues (missed frames) with the TDM card, and it seems from the users posting "it works" type responses that six digits _are_ indicative of the issue. Help me understand... ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDM users: modified zttest.c for testing
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 17:22 -0600, Rich Adamson wrote: > > > > > TDM & X100P card users: > > > > > > I get average numbers very close to 1.024 (especially if I take some > > > > rounding error into account). > > > > > > That's a very good point. Now I'm not sure since the only thing I've > > > got to go by is existing code in zttest.c which implies 8192, and > > > data arrives in 1024 byte frames. > > > > > > I'll dig a little deeper to see if I can figure out which one _is_ > > > correct. > > > > I also recommend only printing 3 decimal places for the times. All of > > the additional digits are just noise. > > Why do you say 3 when the os call returns 6 places? > > The thought process is essentially oriented around identifying timing > issues (missed frames) with the TDM card, and it seems from the users > posting "it works" type responses that six digits _are_ indicative > of the issue. > > Help me understand... While the OS may be returning more digits, the interrupt on the card is only happening on millisecond boundaries (3 decimal places). A missed frame will add 0.001 to the time, not something smaller than that. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDM users: modified zttest.c for testing
> > > > > > TDM & X100P card users: > > > > > > > > I get average numbers very close to 1.024 (especially if I take some > > > > > rounding error into account). > > > > > > > > That's a very good point. Now I'm not sure since the only thing I've > > > > got to go by is existing code in zttest.c which implies 8192, and > > > > data arrives in 1024 byte frames. > > > > > > > > I'll dig a little deeper to see if I can figure out which one _is_ > > > > correct. > > > > > > I also recommend only printing 3 decimal places for the times. All of > > > the additional digits are just noise. > > > > Why do you say 3 when the os call returns 6 places? > > > > The thought process is essentially oriented around identifying timing > > issues (missed frames) with the TDM card, and it seems from the users > > posting "it works" type responses that six digits _are_ indicative > > of the issue. > > > > Help me understand... > > While the OS may be returning more digits, the interrupt on the card is > only happening on millisecond boundaries (3 decimal places). A missed > frame will add 0.001 to the time, not something smaller than that. Based on what I think I've read in the chip specs, there is no such millisecond timer. Rather, it appears the interrupt is raised when the pci chip buffer contains sufficient data (apparently 1024 bytes I'm assuming). Regardless, the microsecond timer (from the OS) is a reasonable way to measure elapsed time and the number of significant digits is better (and more accurate) then whatever is on the card. So, displaying the six digits is very reasonable. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDM users: modified zttest.c for testing
P3 1Ghz under Tao Linux 1.0 (2.4 Kenrnel) cvs-stable w/ X101P --- Results after 66 passes --- Best: 1.024461 -- Worst: 1.024420 -- Average: 1.024447 And on our new gateway box... P4 3.0 Ghz under Tao Linux 4.0 (2.6 Kernel) cvs-stable w/ TE405P --- Results after 106 passes --- Best: 1.023967 -- Worst: 1.023953 -- Average: 1.023960 -- Vice President of N2Net, a New Age Consulting Service, Inc. Company http://www.n2net.net Where everything clicks into place! KP-216-121-ST ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDM users: modified zttest.c for testing
> P3 1Ghz under Tao Linux 1.0 (2.4 Kenrnel) cvs-stable w/ X101P > > --- Results after 66 passes --- > Best: 1.024461 -- Worst: 1.024420 -- Average: 1.024447 > > And on our new gateway box... > > P4 3.0 Ghz under Tao Linux 4.0 (2.6 Kernel) cvs-stable w/ TE405P > > --- Results after 106 passes --- > Best: 1.023967 -- Worst: 1.023953 -- Average: 1.023960 Have you tried to use spandsp at all? It would appear the P3 would fail, but the P4 would like function correctly. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] TDM users: modified zttest.c for testing
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 09:22:24PM -0600, Rich Adamson wrote: > > > P3 1Ghz under Tao Linux 1.0 (2.4 Kenrnel) cvs-stable w/ X101P > > > > --- Results after 66 passes --- > > Best: 1.024461 -- Worst: 1.024420 -- Average: 1.024447 > > > > And on our new gateway box... > > > > P4 3.0 Ghz under Tao Linux 4.0 (2.6 Kernel) cvs-stable w/ TE405P > > > > --- Results after 106 passes --- > > Best: 1.023967 -- Worst: 1.023953 -- Average: 1.023960 > > Have you tried to use spandsp at all? How about trying a fax or modem on lines on the two machines? -- Mike ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
