Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Jay R. Ashworth]

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 09:54:47AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
> As you have conveniently snipped what I  had previously proposed to
> benchmark then your silly proposal of local channels is sneaky at the
> least and at most an attempt to discredit any of the benchmarks.
> 
> Maybe one day Xorcom will be included, don't be mad that they don't
> make the first cut.
> 
> The methodology is the only thing lacking, but I have a couple people
> to help me in this regard so far.

There are many decaffeinated brands that are *just* as flavorful,
Steve.  :-)

I'm pretty sure there are actually standards for this;
Bellcore/Telcordia may have something.  Alex?

Cheers,
- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth   Baylink  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA  http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274

 Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
 Those who count the vote decide everything.
   -- (Joseph Stalin)

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Steve Totaro]

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Steve Totaro
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 7:39 AM, Tzafrir Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 07:27:00AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 3:03 AM, Tzafrir Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 12:13:05AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> I am complaining that they should be provided by Digium.  I have an
>>> >> early source of some funding for benchmarking, so it certainly will
>>> >> not be free.  To the vendors it will.  I will do their jobs for them.
>>> >
>>> > So far you have not come up with a description of a benchmark.
>>> >
>>> > You have not even described clearly what it is that you want to test.
>>
>>> Yes, that is right "so far".  Very observant, although the thread
>>> title may be a clue..
>>
>> As others have noted, this is mostly mmeaningless.
>>
>> I think I can easily get some 1000-s of channels running on this
>> Asteirsk instance on my desktop.
>>
>> Yeah, those would be Local channels and will push no frames at all. But
>> who cares: my great PBX has many concurrent calls.
>>
>> --
>>   Tzafrir Cohen
>> icq#16849755  jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> +972-50-7952406   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> http://www.xorcom.com  iax:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/tzafrir
>>
>> ___
>> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
>>
>
> Whatever, vendor
>

As you have conveniently snipped what I  had previously proposed to
benchmark then your silly proposal of local channels is sneaky at the
least and at most an attempt to discredit any of the benchmarks.

Maybe one day Xorcom will be included, don't be mad that they don't
make the first cut.

The methodology is the only thing lacking, but I have a couple people
to help me in this regard so far.

Thanks,
Steve Totaro

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Steve Totaro]

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 7:39 AM, Tzafrir Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 07:27:00AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
>> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 3:03 AM, Tzafrir Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 12:13:05AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
>> >
>> >> I am complaining that they should be provided by Digium.  I have an
>> >> early source of some funding for benchmarking, so it certainly will
>> >> not be free.  To the vendors it will.  I will do their jobs for them.
>> >
>> > So far you have not come up with a description of a benchmark.
>> >
>> > You have not even described clearly what it is that you want to test.
>
>> Yes, that is right "so far".  Very observant, although the thread
>> title may be a clue..
>
> As others have noted, this is mostly mmeaningless.
>
> I think I can easily get some 1000-s of channels running on this
> Asteirsk instance on my desktop.
>
> Yeah, those would be Local channels and will push no frames at all. But
> who cares: my great PBX has many concurrent calls.
>
> --
>   Tzafrir Cohen
> icq#16849755  jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> +972-50-7952406   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.xorcom.com  iax:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/tzafrir
>
> ___
> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
>

Whatever, vendor

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Sherwood McGowan]

Alexander Olekhnovich wrote:
> Thanks very much for your examples
>
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Sherwood McGowan 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
>
> Alexander Olekhnovich wrote:
> > Hi Asterisk Users,
> >
> > I'm interested in how many concurrent calls Asterisk can process
> > without troubles. I mean 1 Asterisk server (software) like either
> > proxy or media server (any numbers will be appropriate).
> >
> > 1. Is there any limitations by the software? What is this number?
> > 2. What is the maximum count of concurrent calls you've ever
> seen/tested?
> >
> > --
> > Thanks in advance
> > Alexander Olekhnovich
> >
> 
> >
> > ___
> > -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by
> http://www.api-digital.com --
> >
> > asterisk-users mailing list
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
> >http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> Rather than jump into the heavy list of replies, in which there's some
> heated discussion, I thought I'd offer a quick $0.02:
>
> Asterisk's concurrent call capabilities is limited (as far as I know)
> only by the hardware you're using and the implementation. By this
> I mean
> that the amount of transcoding, meetme conferences, SIP/IAX/Zap
> channels, recording, CDR backend, etc...all take their toll on your
> hardware's capabilities.
>
> I'll give you two examples:
> 1. On a Dual 1.5Ghz XEON, 2GB RAM server running CentOS 4.5(unsure on
> this anymore) with only Asterisk 1.4 TRUNK in 1995 in a SIP only
> environment with ONLY ulaw encoding, I've seen 500+ concurrent calls
> with over 2K users on a single machine. All clients were set for
> canreinvite=no, and qualify=yes. This system did not show
> degradation of
> performance.
>
> 2. I'm currently working with a client that has a Dual 2.5 Ghz,
> 2GB RAM
> server, running Debian Etch. They are running two EM Wink T1
> Trunks, and
> 51 Zap phones locally running through Adtran Total Access Channel
> Banks,
> 12 POTS lines running through a Rhino channel bank, and 27 SIP Phones.
> Concurrent calls only run at around 43 calls currently, although I've
> seen it as high as 53, and ALL calls are recorded other than local
> spying on channels and inter-extension calls. Additionally, this
> server
> has PostgreSQL and Apache running on it to allow administration to
> review CDRs and pull recordings, and a Zabbix monitoring agent daemon
> sending data to a local network Zabbix server.  This server showed
> little or no degradation in call quality or service (even with Sox and
> Speexmix running in the background converting recordings via a
> background script) until just recently when we changed T1
> providers and
> got EM Wink instead of the requested PRI. Before we had 99.999% of all
> calls complete from dial to hangup with no issues. Now we're at 98.8%,
> with calls being dropped in midconversation. I have not found the
> answer
> to what is causing the server to drop calls, other than after the
> switchover to EM_W our Zaptel accuracy started degrading. We are
> in the
> process of figuring out how we can resolve this, including possible
> hardware upgrades (which were already planned for handling recordings
> better)
>
> I hope these two examples help show you how two similar machines can
> vary drastically in performance with similar hardware. Differences in
> implementation make a BIG difference.
>
> Slainte,
> Sherwood McGowan
>
>
> ___
> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
>
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Best Regards
> Alexander Olekhnovich
> 
>
> ___
> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
>
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Alexander,
No problem :)

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Tzafrir Cohen]

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 07:27:00AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 3:03 AM, Tzafrir Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 12:13:05AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
> >
> >> I am complaining that they should be provided by Digium.  I have an
> >> early source of some funding for benchmarking, so it certainly will
> >> not be free.  To the vendors it will.  I will do their jobs for them.
> >
> > So far you have not come up with a description of a benchmark.
> >
> > You have not even described clearly what it is that you want to test.

> Yes, that is right "so far".  Very observant, although the thread
> title may be a clue..

As others have noted, this is mostly mmeaningless.

I think I can easily get some 1000-s of channels running on this
Asteirsk instance on my desktop.

Yeah, those would be Local channels and will push no frames at all. But
who cares: my great PBX has many concurrent calls.

-- 
   Tzafrir Cohen
icq#16849755  jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+972-50-7952406   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.xorcom.com  iax:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/tzafrir

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Steve Totaro]

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 3:03 AM, Tzafrir Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 12:13:05AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
>
>> I am complaining that they should be provided by Digium.  I have an
>> early source of some funding for benchmarking, so it certainly will
>> not be free.  To the vendors it will.  I will do their jobs for them.
>
> So far you have not come up with a description of a benchmark.
>
> You have not even described clearly what it is that you want to test.
>
> --
>   Tzafrir Cohen
> icq#16849755  jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> +972-50-7952406   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.xorcom.com  iax:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/tzafrir
>

Yes, that is right "so far".  Very observant, although the thread
title may be a clue..

Thanks,
Steve Totaro

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Alexander Olekhnovich]

Thanks very much for your examples

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Sherwood McGowan <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Alexander Olekhnovich wrote:
> > Hi Asterisk Users,
> >
> > I'm interested in how many concurrent calls Asterisk can process
> > without troubles. I mean 1 Asterisk server (software) like either
> > proxy or media server (any numbers will be appropriate).
> >
> > 1. Is there any limitations by the software? What is this number?
> > 2. What is the maximum count of concurrent calls you've ever seen/tested?
> >
> > --
> > Thanks in advance
> > Alexander Olekhnovich
> > 
> >
> > ___
> > -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
> >
> > asterisk-users mailing list
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
> >http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> Rather than jump into the heavy list of replies, in which there's some
> heated discussion, I thought I'd offer a quick $0.02:
>
> Asterisk's concurrent call capabilities is limited (as far as I know)
> only by the hardware you're using and the implementation. By this I mean
> that the amount of transcoding, meetme conferences, SIP/IAX/Zap
> channels, recording, CDR backend, etc...all take their toll on your
> hardware's capabilities.
>
> I'll give you two examples:
> 1. On a Dual 1.5Ghz XEON, 2GB RAM server running CentOS 4.5(unsure on
> this anymore) with only Asterisk 1.4 TRUNK in 1995 in a SIP only
> environment with ONLY ulaw encoding, I've seen 500+ concurrent calls
> with over 2K users on a single machine. All clients were set for
> canreinvite=no, and qualify=yes. This system did not show degradation of
> performance.
>
> 2. I'm currently working with a client that has a Dual 2.5 Ghz, 2GB RAM
> server, running Debian Etch. They are running two EM Wink T1 Trunks, and
> 51 Zap phones locally running through Adtran Total Access Channel Banks,
> 12 POTS lines running through a Rhino channel bank, and 27 SIP Phones.
> Concurrent calls only run at around 43 calls currently, although I've
> seen it as high as 53, and ALL calls are recorded other than local
> spying on channels and inter-extension calls. Additionally, this server
> has PostgreSQL and Apache running on it to allow administration to
> review CDRs and pull recordings, and a Zabbix monitoring agent daemon
> sending data to a local network Zabbix server.  This server showed
> little or no degradation in call quality or service (even with Sox and
> Speexmix running in the background converting recordings via a
> background script) until just recently when we changed T1 providers and
> got EM Wink instead of the requested PRI. Before we had 99.999% of all
> calls complete from dial to hangup with no issues. Now we're at 98.8%,
> with calls being dropped in midconversation. I have not found the answer
> to what is causing the server to drop calls, other than after the
> switchover to EM_W our Zaptel accuracy started degrading. We are in the
> process of figuring out how we can resolve this, including possible
> hardware upgrades (which were already planned for handling recordings
> better)
>
> I hope these two examples help show you how two similar machines can
> vary drastically in performance with similar hardware. Differences in
> implementation make a BIG difference.
>
> Slainte,
> Sherwood McGowan
>
>
> ___
> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
>
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>



-- 
Best Regards
Alexander Olekhnovich
___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Tzafrir Cohen]

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 12:13:05AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:

> I am complaining that they should be provided by Digium.  I have an
> early source of some funding for benchmarking, so it certainly will
> not be free.  To the vendors it will.  I will do their jobs for them.

So far you have not come up with a description of a benchmark.

You have not even described clearly what it is that you want to test.

-- 
   Tzafrir Cohen
icq#16849755  jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+972-50-7952406   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.xorcom.com  iax:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/tzafrir

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Steve Totaro]

On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Steve Edwards
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2008, Steve Totaro wrote:
>
>> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 12:32 AM, Jay R. Ashworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 06:43:51PM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
 Maybe next they will charge $250 for "conference bridge" capabilities.
  It's a joke to cripple things that can be enabled by flicking a
 switch.
>
> If a feature adds value to a product, the customer will pay more for it.
> If a feature increases your support cost, you will charge more for it.

I charge per hour.  If they want the additional functionality, it must
be defined in the scope of work and they will pay for it based on my
hourly rate.

>
>> I guess I hate to see something I have viewed as such a huge paradigm
>> shift and disruptive force from selling boxes to selling knowledge.
>
> If I buy a bare DL380 from you, will it cost the same as a fully loaded
> DL380 configured, optimized, and guaranteed to handle 400 seats? I think
> you sell your "knowledge" as well as a "box" as well as your time.
>

I already addressed this in another post in this thread.  Your
assumptions are incorrect on how I do business.

>> I do however, think that Digium should provide some rough concurrent
>> call figures and I guess that is how I got off topic on this SwitchVox
>> tangent.  There are some common feature sets, especially when looking
>> at PBX functionality with or without Zap or transcoding hardware that
>> could be published (with a disclaimer of course).  There are also
>> common server platforms but that is more of a moving target.
>
> Someone brought up the TPC benchmark. The purpose of the benchmark is to
> "standardize" a synthetic processing load to allow competing vendors to
> beat their chests. Who is competing with Digium? Where is the competition?
> It's not in software, its in hardware. Thus, the competitors are IBM,
> Dell, HP, Zonbu, etc. Since our marketplace is so small, the
> aforementioned vendors are not interested in the market so the burden
> falls to the interested parties -- us.
>
> If we can agree on a couple of benchmark scenarios, we can then test our
> hardware and post our results to the wiki in table and graph form.
>
> In the interest in starting the process, here are a couple of metrics I'd
> be interested in.
>
> ) What is the maximum number of simultaneous calls (1 on 1 conversations)
> that can be bridged before call quality is impaired>
>
> ) What is the maximum number of simultaneous calls that can be put into a
> single meetme conference before call quality is impaired>
>
> ) What is the maximum number of 3 person (agent, customer, supervisor)
> meetme conferences before call quality is impaired>
>
> How do you objectively measure call quality? Pass a sine wave at the upper
> and lower range of a human voice and compare the waveforms?
>
> How do you construct a "standard" benchmark test bed? 2 identical Asterisk
> systems, 1 beating on the other?
>
> These metrics should be run for each technology (IAX, SIP, TDM via T1, TDM
> via USB) as well as Asterisk version (1.2, 1.4, 1.6)
>
> There are a lot of variables (OS flavor, OS version, OS tweaks, gcc
> version, network interface and driver, etc.) that need to be identified
> and as we collect more samples we may discover that some of these
> variables are important and some are not. This implies that at least in
> the "beta" stage of developing a benchmark, submitters must "own" their
> samples and be willing to re-run tests as the benchmark is refined.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> Steve Edwards  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Voice: +1-760-468-3867 PST
> Newline Fax: +1-760-731-3000
>

Steve, I would like to discuss this more with you.  Please contact me
offlist if you are interested in going forward or being involved.

Thanks,
Steve Totaro

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Steve Totaro]

On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Jay R. Ashworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 12:32:01PM -0700, Steve Edwards wrote:
>> > I guess I hate to see something I have viewed as such a huge paradigm
>> > shift and disruptive force from selling boxes to selling knowledge.
>>
>> If I buy a bare DL380 from you, will it cost the same as a fully loaded
>> DL380 configured, optimized, and guaranteed to handle 400 seats? I think
>> you sell your "knowledge" as well as a "box" as well as your time.
>
> This is a good point, so let me expand it:
>
> Steve (Totaro): *this is what your clients are paying you for*.  To
> know those answers.
>
> Are you turning around and bitching that someone isn't giving you those
> answers for free so you can charge clients for them?  :-)
>

snipped

They do indeed pay me to know those answers but really more how to
pull off the impossible.

I am complaining that they should be provided by Digium.  I have an
early source of some funding for benchmarking, so it certainly will
not be free.  To the vendors it will.  I will do their jobs for them.

About the selling of the HP DL 380, I very rarely purchase the
equipment myself because hardware markup is a joke.  I get a quote
from my guys, and then tell the customer who to call and what to order
from my rep at PCConnection or CDW.  It not only helps with cash flow,
I don't have to collect or account for sales tax.  This offsets any
small profit from hardware, phones included.

It is all about selling my knowledge, time, and expertise.  Showing
the customer I am making nothing off the hardware makes my fees more
palatable.

Thanks,
Steve Totaro

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Jay R. Ashworth]

On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 12:32:01PM -0700, Steve Edwards wrote:
> > I guess I hate to see something I have viewed as such a huge paradigm
> > shift and disruptive force from selling boxes to selling knowledge.
> 
> If I buy a bare DL380 from you, will it cost the same as a fully loaded 
> DL380 configured, optimized, and guaranteed to handle 400 seats? I think 
> you sell your "knowledge" as well as a "box" as well as your time.

This is a good point, so let me expand it:

Steve (Totaro): *this is what your clients are paying you for*.  To
know those answers.

Are you turning around and bitching that someone isn't giving you those
answers for free so you can charge clients for them?  :-)

> In the interest in starting the process, here are a couple of metrics I'd 
> be interested in.
> 
> ) What is the maximum number of simultaneous calls (1 on 1 conversations) 
> that can be bridged before call quality is impaired>
> 
> ) What is the maximum number of simultaneous calls that can be put into a 
> single meetme conference before call quality is impaired>
> 
> ) What is the maximum number of 3 person (agent, customer, supervisor) 
> meetme conferences before call quality is impaired>
> 
> How do you objectively measure call quality? Pass a sine wave at the upper 
> and lower range of a human voice and compare the waveforms?

No, actually there are benches for that; cell providers have a standard
or two, I think.

> How do you construct a "standard" benchmark test bed? 2 identical Asterisk 
> systems, 1 beating on the other?
> 
> These metrics should be run for each technology (IAX, SIP, TDM via T1, TDM 
> via USB) as well as Asterisk version (1.2, 1.4, 1.6)
> 
> There are a lot of variables (OS flavor, OS version, OS tweaks, gcc 
> version, network interface and driver, etc.) that need to be identified 
> and as we collect more samples we may discover that some of these 
> variables are important and some are not. This implies that at least in 
> the "beta" stage of developing a benchmark, submitters must "own" their 
> samples and be willing to re-run tests as the benchmark is refined.

Oh yeah; it's not a small job.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth   Baylink  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA  http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274

 Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
 Those who count the vote decide everything.
   -- (Joseph Stalin)

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Jay R. Ashworth]

On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 02:02:18PM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
> If Digium won't supply benchmarking, then let's have a 3rd party throw
> down the gauntlet.
> 
> Digium vs Sangoma on stock kernels and stock machines with identical
> call load, apps, transcoding.  No optimization, just stock, and see at
> what load we hit a breaking point.
> 
> Then Asterisk vs FreeSwitch on similar apps pushing them to the
> breaking point as well.
> 
> Nothing but pure numbers.

Generated by a tester who can define "breaking" in a fashion that suits
everyone.  I've just had a problem clear up by bumping a machine from
Core2Duo to Core2Quad, that I was almost certain was a crappy Ethernet
cable, 400 ft over spec.

Defining what's "stable" and what's "not" will be the hard part, not
running the tests.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth   Baylink  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA  http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274

 Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
 Those who count the vote decide everything.
   -- (Joseph Stalin)

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Steve Edwards]

On Sun, 18 May 2008, Steve Totaro wrote:

> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 12:32 AM, Jay R. Ashworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 06:43:51PM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
>>> Maybe next they will charge $250 for "conference bridge" capabilities.
>>>  It's a joke to cripple things that can be enabled by flicking a
>>> switch.

If a feature adds value to a product, the customer will pay more for it. 
If a feature increases your support cost, you will charge more for it.

> I guess I hate to see something I have viewed as such a huge paradigm
> shift and disruptive force from selling boxes to selling knowledge.

If I buy a bare DL380 from you, will it cost the same as a fully loaded 
DL380 configured, optimized, and guaranteed to handle 400 seats? I think 
you sell your "knowledge" as well as a "box" as well as your time.

> I do however, think that Digium should provide some rough concurrent
> call figures and I guess that is how I got off topic on this SwitchVox
> tangent.  There are some common feature sets, especially when looking
> at PBX functionality with or without Zap or transcoding hardware that
> could be published (with a disclaimer of course).  There are also
> common server platforms but that is more of a moving target.

Someone brought up the TPC benchmark. The purpose of the benchmark is to 
"standardize" a synthetic processing load to allow competing vendors to 
beat their chests. Who is competing with Digium? Where is the competition? 
It's not in software, its in hardware. Thus, the competitors are IBM, 
Dell, HP, Zonbu, etc. Since our marketplace is so small, the 
aforementioned vendors are not interested in the market so the burden 
falls to the interested parties -- us.

If we can agree on a couple of benchmark scenarios, we can then test our 
hardware and post our results to the wiki in table and graph form.

In the interest in starting the process, here are a couple of metrics I'd 
be interested in.

) What is the maximum number of simultaneous calls (1 on 1 conversations) 
that can be bridged before call quality is impaired>

) What is the maximum number of simultaneous calls that can be put into a 
single meetme conference before call quality is impaired>

) What is the maximum number of 3 person (agent, customer, supervisor) 
meetme conferences before call quality is impaired>

How do you objectively measure call quality? Pass a sine wave at the upper 
and lower range of a human voice and compare the waveforms?

How do you construct a "standard" benchmark test bed? 2 identical Asterisk 
systems, 1 beating on the other?

These metrics should be run for each technology (IAX, SIP, TDM via T1, TDM 
via USB) as well as Asterisk version (1.2, 1.4, 1.6)

There are a lot of variables (OS flavor, OS version, OS tweaks, gcc 
version, network interface and driver, etc.) that need to be identified 
and as we collect more samples we may discover that some of these 
variables are important and some are not. This implies that at least in 
the "beta" stage of developing a benchmark, submitters must "own" their 
samples and be willing to re-run tests as the benchmark is refined.

Thanks in advance,

Steve Edwards  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Voice: +1-760-468-3867 PST
Newline Fax: +1-760-731-3000

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Mike Trest - On Travel]

At 02:25 PM 5/18/2008, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
>Please suggest a test environment

IMHO, it is definitely NOT EASY to come up with a standardized test 
without some standardized network configurations and standardized 
load generation tools.  It is even harder when a non-standard or 
niche application use is intended.

For example:  I had to run a bench mark with live traffic calls that 
entered by the PSTN and VoIP gateways into a PAY-FOR-PLAY farm of asterisks.

I had to generate a minimum load of 5,000 simultaneous calls with a 
specific distribution of call durations and to continuously pump that 
traffic to attain specific objectives for rate-of-arrival on new calls.

This required me to tie up 10,000 phone lines.  5,000 outgoing calls 
to specific numbers that would be terminated by specific carriers 
plus another 5,000 inbound VoIP and TDM lines to receive those calls.

Reason eventually prevailed and we got the marketing & program 
managers to understand what can be shown by a much smaller set of 
lines (3,000 total, 1,500 IN and 1,500 OUT).   This was a 3% sample 
of the intended full scale loading rather than a 10% loading.

I would not expect any generalized benchmark to even begin to address 
all of the non-Asterisk elements in this over-all system.   Indeed, 
how could I even base any estimates for this based on generalized 
benchmarks for products optimized for mass-market PBX,IVR, or 
CALL-routing applications.

I am using extreme examples to make the point that the 
Integrator-Reseller has that responsibility.
For the non-extreme examples, the vendors conservative estimates for 
middle-of-the-road users of pre-prepared solutions are just fine.

BTW:  It required only two guys and one hour to setup and perform the 
test with Asterisks.  It took several days of advanced negotiation to 
agree on the methodology with all concerned.  This is a typical 
situation when you want to make sure the client knows enough to make 
a valid decision.

..mike.. 


___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Tzafrir Cohen]

On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 02:02:18PM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:

> Asterisk benchmarking is one of the topics that comes up on the list
> frequently and consistently for what, like the last six years (that I
> have been involved with Asterisk)?  I would call that a "Salt
> Boulder".
> 
> On the wiki there is a long page dedicated to dimensioning.  I know
> beyond a shadow of a doubt that people really are very interested in
> the numbers.
> 
> If Digium won't supply benchmarking, then let's have a 3rd party throw
> down the gauntlet.
> 
> Digium vs Sangoma on stock kernels and stock machines with identical
> call load, apps, transcoding.  No optimization, just stock, and see at
> what load we hit a breaking point.

What stock kernel?

No optimizations? (-O0? )

No optimized glibc either?

> 
> Then Asterisk vs FreeSwitch on similar apps pushing them to the
> breaking point as well.

I'd say that in both cases a competent benchmarketeer would be able to 
suggest tests that will provide results proving "his" side s the clear 
winner.

> 
> Nothing but pure numbers.

Sure.

/dev/random also gives me pure numbers :-)

Please suggest a test environment if you think it is so easy to come up
with one.

Frankly I'd say that marketing battles are not the best place to start
working on a good benchmark. Everyone will be tainted and suspected.

-- 
   Tzafrir Cohen
icq#16849755  jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+972-50-7952406   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.xorcom.com  iax:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/tzafrir

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Steve Totaro]

On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Tilghman Lesher
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 18 May 2008 10:56:00 Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
>> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 02:45:09AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
>> > I do however, think that Digium should provide some rough concurrent
>> > call figures and I guess that is how I got off topic on this SwitchVox
>> > tangent.  There are some common feature sets, especially when looking
>> > at PBX functionality with or without Zap or transcoding hardware that
>> > could be published (with a disclaimer of course).  There are also
>> > common server platforms but that is more of a moving target.
>>
>> Sure.  But can you understand the point Tilghman was making there?
>> They quote those numbers as "cover our ass" numbers; their intention is
>> to avoid running up their tech support expense too much.
>
> An additional point worth making is that the numbers for Business Edition
> aren't based on installation on a very specific machine, where we've tweaked
> operating system and Asterisk variables for optimal performance, for the
> express purpose of coming out on top of stated benchmarks.  They are call
> numbers that you can expect will be stable, even if you aren't good at finely
> tweaking Linux systems, as, I suspect, most people running production systems
> are not.
>
> I can't say that Digium will never publish benchmarks, but I believe that most
> people who are concerned with the proper functioning of whatever they've come
> to use Asterisk for (call routing, PBX, IVR, or something else) take
> benchmarks with an extremely large chunk of salt.
>
> --
> Tilghman
>

Asterisk benchmarking is one of the topics that comes up on the list
frequently and consistently for what, like the last six years (that I
have been involved with Asterisk)?  I would call that a "Salt
Boulder".

On the wiki there is a long page dedicated to dimensioning.  I know
beyond a shadow of a doubt that people really are very interested in
the numbers.

If Digium won't supply benchmarking, then let's have a 3rd party throw
down the gauntlet.

Digium vs Sangoma on stock kernels and stock machines with identical
call load, apps, transcoding.  No optimization, just stock, and see at
what load we hit a breaking point.

Then Asterisk vs FreeSwitch on similar apps pushing them to the
breaking point as well.

Nothing but pure numbers.

Thanks,
Steve Totaro

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Tilghman Lesher]

On Sunday 18 May 2008 10:56:00 Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 02:45:09AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
> > I do however, think that Digium should provide some rough concurrent
> > call figures and I guess that is how I got off topic on this SwitchVox
> > tangent.  There are some common feature sets, especially when looking
> > at PBX functionality with or without Zap or transcoding hardware that
> > could be published (with a disclaimer of course).  There are also
> > common server platforms but that is more of a moving target.
>
> Sure.  But can you understand the point Tilghman was making there?
> They quote those numbers as "cover our ass" numbers; their intention is
> to avoid running up their tech support expense too much.

An additional point worth making is that the numbers for Business Edition
aren't based on installation on a very specific machine, where we've tweaked
operating system and Asterisk variables for optimal performance, for the
express purpose of coming out on top of stated benchmarks.  They are call
numbers that you can expect will be stable, even if you aren't good at finely
tweaking Linux systems, as, I suspect, most people running production systems
are not.

I can't say that Digium will never publish benchmarks, but I believe that most
people who are concerned with the proper functioning of whatever they've come
to use Asterisk for (call routing, PBX, IVR, or something else) take
benchmarks with an extremely large chunk of salt.

-- 
Tilghman

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Jay R. Ashworth]

On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 02:45:09AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
> Let me clarify this a bit with some ramblings if anyone cares to read,
> if not move along.
> 
> Yes, I was whining a bit.
> 
> I always recommend what I think fits best for a customer.  I am not in
> the "Digium Foodchain" because of the first statement.  I swear
> allegiance to nobody except my customers, who are trusting me to ask
> the right questions, feel them out, be a mind reader to a degree, and
> deliver the best customized solution for them that I can.

Good.  You're hired.  :-)

> I have purchased and installed SwitchVoxen a couple of times, more
> than a year before they were acquired by Digium.  I am not positive,
> but I am pretty sure the pricing model was much different.  Anyways,
> if you google my name and SwitchVox you will see that I have always
> (time and time again) said it was a great product, and it is.

[ URL elided; I'll take your word for it. ]

> I guess I hate to see something I have viewed as such a huge paradigm
> shift and disruptive force from selling boxes to selling knowledge.  I
> hate to see things going back to the status quo of the old world (such
> as feature pricing).

Aha.  Got it.  And yeah, I have some sympathy for that viewpoint.  But
as people would tell *me*: Look!  An opportunity!!

> BUT, as stated, I am not forced to use SwitchVox or any commercial
> product for that matter and Digium has to make money too so I was off
> base on that.  While SwitchVox is Asterisk, Asterisk is not Switchvox.

Exactly.

> I do however, think that Digium should provide some rough concurrent
> call figures and I guess that is how I got off topic on this SwitchVox
> tangent.  There are some common feature sets, especially when looking
> at PBX functionality with or without Zap or transcoding hardware that
> could be published (with a disclaimer of course).  There are also
> common server platforms but that is more of a moving target.

Sure.  But can you understand the point Tilghman was making there?
They quote those numbers as "cover our ass" numbers; their intention is
to avoid running up their tech support expense too much.

The task you're after is more properly a community task, I should
think.

Yo, Matt!  Feel free to chime in here.  :-)

> Maybe if Sangoma publishes some along those lines, then Digium will
> follow suit.

Perhaps.

> Maybe just side by side benchmarking would be sufficient to both give
> an idea on scaling and also compare like hardware from different
> vendors.  I would probably even throw FreeSwitch into mix.  Word has
> it that FS can scale up much larger for setting up and tearing down
> calls.  I am an FS newb as of now so it is hearsay.

Yeah; I liked what I saw from the inside, but some people tell me it's
kinda hincky internally, as well.

Course, a DMS-100 probably is, too.  ;-)

> I like Digium and how they are "Boldly Going Where no Man has Gone
> Before" (before the politically correct version :-)

You did see the final episode of "Star Trek: Enterprise", right?

>It must be hard
> coming up with a new business model and while they do things such as
> EOLing 1.2 and putting out untested, broken 1.4 code (I could go on
> but I am don't want to come across as bashing Digium).

I'm used to it: I program in filePro.  :-)

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth   Baylink  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA  http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274

 Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
 Those who count the vote decide everything.
   -- (Joseph Stalin)

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Michael Graves]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 00:34:30 -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:

>On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 07:07:51PM -0500, Michael Graves wrote:
>> I work in the broadcast and TV production business. Some time ago a
>> major company called Quantel created a hardware system called "Edit
>> Box." It was wickedly fast and could do things with multiple streams of
>> uncompressed video in real-time. It was way beyond PCs, Macs or *nix
>> boxes of the day. It started at $500,000 USD for four streams.
>
>... and now I can do that on a Mac laptop.
>
>Aren't you glad *you* didn't have to write that check?  :-)

That tale harkens from around 1997. Even at $750,000 the owners of the
facility made a lot of money with the system. Big investment often
comes with big returns.

Michael
--
Michael Graves
mgravesmstvp.com
http://blog.mgraves.org
o713-861-4005
c713-201-1262
sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
skype mjgraves
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Al Baker]

Glad I was able to foster some good open discussion.
Hopefully DIGIUM will take to heart some  of the thoughts expressed here
and end up with a BETTER SOLUTION for ALL.

Steve Totaro wrote:
> Inline
>
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Tilghman Lesher
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   
>> On Friday 16 May 2008 09:11:11 Steve Totaro wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
>>>   
 On Friday 16 May 2008 06:59:15 Al Baker wrote:
 
> this is one very weak area for *. There is NO ANSWER.
> Now in fairness to *, the answer DOES depend on a # of critical
> variables. How much CODEC to CODEC transcription is going on.
> How many MEET Me conferences are going on.
>
> On the other hand, DIGIUM COULD, since they have a lab take 4-5
> 'standard' workloads
> on two of the most common hardware boxes, say Dell & HP, and run x # of
> transcriptions and
> show the #'s.
> Then x # of meet-me conferences.
>
> Face it the DB Industry did this 15-2- YEARS ago with TP benckmarks
>
> Rockwell and NORTEL can tell you this for every piece of hardware they
> sell.
>
> It is a an area DIGIUM need to "man-up" in.
>   
 I'm not sure what your problem is with Digium.  They sell several
 machines for which they publish very specific numbers as to how many
 users those machines will support (the Switchvox appliances).  Note that
 these machines are configurable only from the web interface, and they do
 not allow you to install additional software.  In other words, when they
 give you a specific machine, with a ton of those variables controlled,
 they can give you a number.

 Digium is under no obligation to give you numbers for your own hardware.
 That's up to you (and you get to control your own set of variables).
 
>>> It seems any constructive criticism offered, you take as an attack
>>> against Digium.  That is not a good attitude.
>>>   
>> I don't see how you figured out what I was thinking.  Al said Digium doesn't
>> publish any numbers, and I responded, saying that he was incorrect; Digium
>> does indeed publish numbers (they're just not for his hardware).
>> 
>
> "I'm not sure what your problem is with Digium."  Proof, period.
>
>   
>>> While under no obligation, it certainly would help sales.
>>>   
>> Whose sales?  If you're talking about the appliances, then yes, I'm sure the
>> publication of those numbers help with sales.  If you mean your own sales,
>> well, you're right, Digium's numbers probably don't help your sales.  You
>> could certainly put together a lab and do your own testing.  Why don't you do
>> that?
>> 
>
> Sales in general.  You don't need to benchmark everything, just a few
> basic benchmarks, maybe gear it to your hardware and SIP as a gateway,
> then build from there.  Most companies do this.
>
> I have my own lab and bechmarks but they are for Sangoma hardware and
> very specific servers and all geared to callcenter apps.
>
>   
>>> I take "Appliance Numbers" with a grain of salt.  The sales model of
>>> SwitchVox (and most others) is based on number of ports (SoHO, SMB,
>>> Enterprise) not maximum number of ports that the appliance could
>>> actually handle if not artificially constrained.
>>>   
>> Consider the maximum number of ports that Switchvox will enable on a single
>> machine and consider that the maximum number that they're willing to support
>> comfortably without running into some hard limit.  You never want to run into
>> a hard limit in the field anyway.
>> 
>
> High powered ervers are cheap and so are appliances once you settle on
> an enclosure and guts and start cranking out boxes.  Hard limit
> common.
>
>   
>>> This is in the style of legacy proprietary systems and anther reason
>>> why the sale cycle goes a little tougher than a custom job.  Asterisk
>>> with FreePBX (and maybe Druid) eliminate these artificial constraints
>>> on usage.
>>>   
>> Yes, but the point of those constraints is to permit support a manageable
>> job.  Yes, you could probably add 2 or 3 or 10 or 15 to the number of calls
>> that a particular machine could handle, but from a support perspective, it
>> doesn't matter how many the machine could theoretically handle, it matters
>> how many it could handle in the particular installation in a supportable
>> configuration (those are all those pesky variables we've been talking about).
>> 
>
> Maybe that is what the official corporate answer is or, you were
> brainwashed to believe, but I tend to think it is to sell SMB and
> Enterprise software and support.  It is all about money.  I didn't
> fall off the turnip truck yesterday.
>
>   
>>> I have load averages and CPU usage stats in my mind for all the
>>> various usages and hardware through experience in my mind.  Of course
>>> they are only valuable to the exact setup I was doing.
>>> 

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Steve Totaro]

On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 12:32 AM, Jay R. Ashworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 06:43:51PM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
>> Maybe next they will charge $250 for "conference bridge" capabilities.
>>  It's a joke to cripple things that can be enabled by flicking a
>> switch.  Your system comes with eight ports of VM but for another $250
>> we can give you 12..
>
> "Feature pricing" (also called "value pricing") is a time honored
> tradition -- especially in the telecom business.
>
> Ever wonder why your telco charged you $2.50 a month for call waiting
> when it involved exactly, let me see, right: *no hardware at all*?
>
> Because they could.
>
> And more to the point: because Nortel charged *them* $20k a year[1] to
> enable the feature in the generic, and they were damn sure gonna get
> that money back from someone.
>
> In this case, *they give away the entire source package.  For free*.
>
> I like you a lot, Steve, generally, but it feels a bit like you're
> whining, on this one, to me...
>
> Cheers,
> -- jra
> [1] These features were indeed charged for, though usually in packages;
> I don't have exact numbers -- though I *do* have a DMS 100 Feature
> Portfolio on my bookshelf, so I could give you a feature number, if you
> like.
> --
> Jay R. Ashworth   Baylink  [EMAIL 
> PROTECTED]
> Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
> Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24
> St Petersburg FL USA  http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
>
> Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
> Those who count the vote decide everything.
>   -- (Joseph Stalin)
>

Let me clarify this a bit with some ramblings if anyone cares to read,
if not move along.

Yes, I was whining a bit.

I always recommend what I think fits best for a customer.  I am not in
the "Digium Foodchain" because of the first statement.  I swear
allegiance to nobody except my customers, who are trusting me to ask
the right questions, feel them out, be a mind reader to a degree, and
deliver the best customized solution for them that I can.

I have purchased and installed SwitchVoxen a couple of times, more
than a year before they were acquired by Digium.  I am not positive,
but I am pretty sure the pricing model was much different.  Anyways,
if you google my name and SwitchVox you will see that I have always
(time and time again) said it was a great product, and it is.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=7jw&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=steve+totaro+switchvox&spell=1

I guess I hate to see something I have viewed as such a huge paradigm
shift and disruptive force from selling boxes to selling knowledge.  I
hate to see things going back to the status quo of the old world (such
as feature pricing).

BUT, as stated, I am not forced to use SwitchVox or any commercial
product for that matter and Digium has to make money too so I was off
base on that.  While SwitchVox is Asterisk, Asterisk is not Switchvox.
 AsteriskNow is Asterisk but not now.

I do however, think that Digium should provide some rough concurrent
call figures and I guess that is how I got off topic on this SwitchVox
tangent.  There are some common feature sets, especially when looking
at PBX functionality with or without Zap or transcoding hardware that
could be published (with a disclaimer of course).  There are also
common server platforms but that is more of a moving target.

Maybe if Sangoma publishes some along those lines, then Digium will
follow suit.

Maybe just side by side benchmarking would be sufficient to both give
an idea on scaling and also compare like hardware from different
vendors.  I would probably even throw FreeSwitch into mix.  Word has
it that FS can scale up much larger for setting up and tearing down
calls.  I am an FS newb as of now so it is hearsay.

I like Digium and how they are "Boldly Going Where no Man has Gone
Before (before the politically correct version :-)  It must be hard
coming up with a new business model and while they do things such as
EOLing 1.2 and putting out untested, broken 1.4 code (I could go on
but I am don't want to come across as bashing Digium).

I want to be supportive and thankful, so thanks Digium (and everyone
else in the community).

Thanks,
Steve Totaro

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Jay R. Ashworth]

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 07:07:51PM -0500, Michael Graves wrote:
> I work in the broadcast and TV production business. Some time ago a
> major company called Quantel created a hardware system called "Edit
> Box." It was wickedly fast and could do things with multiple streams of
> uncompressed video in real-time. It was way beyond PCs, Macs or *nix
> boxes of the day. It started at $500,000 USD for four streams.

... and now I can do that on a Mac laptop.

Aren't you glad *you* didn't have to write that check?  :-)

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth   Baylink  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA  http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274

 Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
 Those who count the vote decide everything.
   -- (Joseph Stalin)

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Jay R. Ashworth]

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 06:43:51PM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
> Maybe next they will charge $250 for "conference bridge" capabilities.
>  It's a joke to cripple things that can be enabled by flicking a
> switch.  Your system comes with eight ports of VM but for another $250
> we can give you 12..

"Feature pricing" (also called "value pricing") is a time honored
tradition -- especially in the telecom business.

Ever wonder why your telco charged you $2.50 a month for call waiting
when it involved exactly, let me see, right: *no hardware at all*?

Because they could. 

And more to the point: because Nortel charged *them* $20k a year[1] to
enable the feature in the generic, and they were damn sure gonna get 
that money back from someone.

In this case, *they give away the entire source package.  For free*.

I like you a lot, Steve, generally, but it feels a bit like you're
whining, on this one, to me...

Cheers,
-- jra
[1] These features were indeed charged for, though usually in packages;
I don't have exact numbers -- though I *do* have a DMS 100 Feature
Portfolio on my bookshelf, so I could give you a feature number, if you
like.
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth   Baylink  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA  http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274

 Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
 Those who count the vote decide everything.
   -- (Joseph Stalin)

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Jay R. Ashworth]

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 06:34:12PM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
> End of life date for Asterisk 1.2 was August 1, 2007.

Well, my app won't *run* on 1.4 reliably yet, so I hope they get it
fixed soon...

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth   Baylink  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA  http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274

 Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
 Those who count the vote decide everything.
   -- (Joseph Stalin)

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Michael Graves]

On Sat, 17 May 2008 18:32:57 -0500, Tilghman Lesher wrote:

>> Maybe next they will charge $250 for "conference bridge" capabilities.
>>  It's a joke to cripple things that can be enabled by flicking a
>> switch.  Your system comes with eight ports of VM but for another $250
>> we can give you 12..

Forgive me for jumping in on this, but that's terribly naive.

I work in the broadcast and TV production business. Some time ago a
major company called Quantel created a hardware system called "Edit
Box." It was wickedly fast and could do things with multiple streams of
uncompressed video in real-time. It was way beyond PCs, Macs or *nix
boxes of the day. It started at $500,000 USD for four streams.

I was at a Chicago post production facility the day that Quantel
delivered an "upgrade" that allowed the system to manipulate 8
simultaneous video streams. The field service tech walk in with a disk
and installed a software patch. Voila, twice as many layers. 

That upgrade cost another $250,000.

This kind of thing goes on all the time. The hardware has the core
capabilities but licensing controls your access to it. You get what you
pay for.

Michael
--
Michael Graves
mgravesmstvp.com
http://blog.mgraves.org
o713-861-4005
c713-201-1262
sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
skype mjgraves
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Tilghman Lesher]

On Saturday 17 May 2008 17:43:51 Steve Totaro wrote:
> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 5:36 PM, Jay R. Ashworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 08:51:04AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
> >> It is about the money, like it or not.  You are going to an Avaya type
> >> licensing scheme, everything is charged per port.  The box is capable
> >> of doing more but you turn it off until you get more money.  It's like
> >> the Definity G3s I have worked with.  The box can do everything but
> >> until you pony up, it is not activated.
> >
> > Yeah, and if you cut a jumper on a VAX11/780, it went twice as fast.
> >
> > So *what*, Steve?  Are they not allowed to make money?
>
> Sure they are allowed to make money but don't lie and say it is not
> about the money, "It is about support".  Yeah supporting the company's
> cash flow.

If that were all it was about, then you could call sales and get an infinite
number of licenses for a particular machine.  Go ahead and try it.  Call them.
There is a hard upper limit on the number of licenses they will sell for a
single machine, because any more is not supportable.

They may say, "Let us call you back on that," because the next thing they're
going to do is consult with Engineering and Support and find out if that is
doable.  The maximum number of calls that you can buy for a single machine
is really about what is supportable (because if we sell more, and it doesn't
work, it's going to cost us in support time, on the phone, and possibly ending
up with a customer refund, because what (hypothetically) was sold was not
supportable).

Yes, the various tiers below that absolute limit is about money; it's about
charging based upon what we think it will cost us to support that number
of users, should something go wrong, and the customer needs to call in.  And
yes, there's a bit of profit margin in there.  I don't completely understand
the formula, and I don't pretend to.  However, to say that the maximum number
of supportable users on a platform is about making money is just completely
wrong.  The maximum number is about avoiding a situation where we would
lose money.

> I can express my opinion and I did.  Maybe Digium will take notice,
> maybe they won't.
>
> Maybe next they will charge $250 for "conference bridge" capabilities.
>  It's a joke to cripple things that can be enabled by flicking a
> switch.  Your system comes with eight ports of VM but for another $250
> we can give you 12..

I wasn't aware that you were a customer of either Switchvox or Business
Edition.  Last I checked, the open source version that you use is not
constrained in that way (and it isn't likely to be constrained in the future,
either).  The whole reason that Business Edition exists is because some
customers demand professional support for Asterisk, and paying for that
support costs money.  That's all.  Business Edition does not significantly
differ from the open source version -- the only reason we put a license
code on it is to ensure that when people call in for support, they have
essentially already prepaid for that support.

-- 
Tilghman

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Steve Totaro]

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 5:36 PM, Jay R. Ashworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 08:51:04AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
>> It is about the money, like it or not.  You are going to an Avaya type
>> licensing scheme, everything is charged per port.  The box is capable
>> of doing more but you turn it off until you get more money.  It's like
>> the Definity G3s I have worked with.  The box can do everything but
>> until you pony up, it is not activated.
>
> Yeah, and if you cut a jumper on a VAX11/780, it went twice as fast.
>
> So *what*, Steve?  Are they not allowed to make money?
>
>> Any SwitchVox sale I have tried to pitch dies quickly and this is even
>> involving Switchvox reps on a conference call.
>
> Ah.  Then if you don't like the way they do business, vote with your
> wallet; don't sell their junk.
>
>> How about if I don't want support and use my own hardware, then can do
>> I still have to pay to upgrade to SMB or whatever?  Follow the logic?
>> Anyways, the profit margin on "appliances" is way too low.  I might as
>> well sell 3Coms or NECs if I am selling boxes with per seat license
>> fees and have to hack the box to do any customization.
>
> Yup.  :-)
>
>> They are not being conservative, when all you do is put a CC and then
>> a button shows up to upgrade, this is the same hardware mind you
>>
>> Guess I will stick to my DL 380s and (if a GUI is required) FreePBX or
>> Druid (if it tests out ok).
>
> Sounds like the best answer to me, for you.  :-)
>
> Cheers,
> -- jra
> --
> Jay R. Ashworth   Baylink  [EMAIL 
> PROTECTED]
> Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
> Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24
> St Petersburg FL USA  http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
>
> Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
> Those who count the vote decide everything.
>   -- (Joseph Stalin)
>


Sure they are allowed to make money but don't lie and say it is not
about the money, "It is about support".  Yeah supporting the company's
cash flow.

I can express my opinion and I did.  Maybe Digium will take notice,
maybe they won't.

Maybe next they will charge $250 for "conference bridge" capabilities.
 It's a joke to cripple things that can be enabled by flicking a
switch.  Your system comes with eight ports of VM but for another $250
we can give you 12..

Thanks,
Steve Totaro

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Steve Totaro]

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 5:36 PM, Jay R. Ashworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 09:06:15AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
>> Anyways, isn't Asterisk 1.2.x and FC6 EOL?
>
> 1.2 better not be EOL.  :-)
>
> Cheers,
> -- jra
> --
> Jay R. Ashworth   Baylink  [EMAIL 
> PROTECTED]
> Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
> Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24
> St Petersburg FL USA  http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
>
> Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
> Those who count the vote decide everything.
>   -- (Joseph Stalin)
>

End of life date for Asterisk 1.2 was August 1, 2007.

Thanks,
Steve Totaro

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Jay R. Ashworth]

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 10:56:21PM +0200, Michiel van Baak wrote:
> > He is an employee and he does not post from a Digium account or
> > include that fact in his signature.  Not that it is to hide the fact,
> > but it certainly is obfuscated.
> 
> I think it just shows that his opinions are his, and in no way are
> linked to the 'digium opinion'

That's the common approach, yes.  If he says something that seems...
off, in that context, I'm sure we'll call him on it.

Cheers,
-- jr 'or his bosses will' a
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth   Baylink  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA  http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274

 Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
 Those who count the vote decide everything.
   -- (Joseph Stalin)

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Jay R. Ashworth]

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 08:51:04AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
> It is about the money, like it or not.  You are going to an Avaya type
> licensing scheme, everything is charged per port.  The box is capable
> of doing more but you turn it off until you get more money.  It's like
> the Definity G3s I have worked with.  The box can do everything but
> until you pony up, it is not activated.

Yeah, and if you cut a jumper on a VAX11/780, it went twice as fast.

So *what*, Steve?  Are they not allowed to make money?

> Any SwitchVox sale I have tried to pitch dies quickly and this is even
> involving Switchvox reps on a conference call.

Ah.  Then if you don't like the way they do business, vote with your
wallet; don't sell their junk.

> How about if I don't want support and use my own hardware, then can do
> I still have to pay to upgrade to SMB or whatever?  Follow the logic?
> Anyways, the profit margin on "appliances" is way too low.  I might as
> well sell 3Coms or NECs if I am selling boxes with per seat license
> fees and have to hack the box to do any customization.

Yup.  :-)

> They are not being conservative, when all you do is put a CC and then
> a button shows up to upgrade, this is the same hardware mind you
> 
> Guess I will stick to my DL 380s and (if a GUI is required) FreePBX or
> Druid (if it tests out ok).

Sounds like the best answer to me, for you.  :-)

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth   Baylink  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA  http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274

 Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
 Those who count the vote decide everything.
   -- (Joseph Stalin)

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Jay R. Ashworth]

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 09:06:15AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
> Anyways, isn't Asterisk 1.2.x and FC6 EOL?

1.2 better not be EOL.  :-)

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth   Baylink  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA  http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274

 Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
 Those who count the vote decide everything.
   -- (Joseph Stalin)

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Jay R. Ashworth]

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 08:18:46PM -0500, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
> > Tilghman *does* seem to be a bit of a cheerleader, but there's nothing
> > wrong with that... unless you're an *employee*, and you're going out of
> > your way to hide it.
> 
> I'm been a member of this community far longer than I've worked for Digium,
> and even then, I form my own opinions and I call them as I see them.  If I
> can't say something because of insider knowledge, I know well enough to keep
> my mouth shut, but this is not one of those times.  And if there _is_
> something wrong with the way Digium is doing something, I also am more than
> happy to put up a big fuss until it's fixed.
> 
> I'm probably a bit of a loose cannon, but they knew that when they hired
> me.  ;-)

That's about what I thought, and -- speaking for myself -- I'm fine
with that.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth   Baylink  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA  http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274

 Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
 Those who count the vote decide everything.
   -- (Joseph Stalin)

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Michiel van Baak]

On 16:20, Sat 17 May 08, Steve Totaro wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 8:37 PM, Jay R. Ashworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 10:11:11AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
> >> It seems any constructive criticism offered, you take as an attack
> >> against Digium.  That is not a good attitude.
> >
> > I dunno, Steve; I wouldn't call "Digium needs to 'man-up'" constructive
> > criticism, myself.  I'd call it an ad-hominem.
> >
> > Tilghman *does* seem to be a bit of a cheerleader, but there's nothing
> > wrong with that... unless you're an *employee*, and you're going out of
> > your way to hide it.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -- jra
> > --
> > Jay R. Ashworth   Baylink  [EMAIL 
> > PROTECTED]
> > Designer The Things I Think   RFC 
> > 2100
> > Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 
> > e24
> > St Petersburg FL USA  http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 
> > 1274
> >
> > Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
> > Those who count the vote decide everything.
> >   -- (Joseph Stalin)
> >
> 
> He is an employee and he does not post from a Digium account or
> include that fact in his signature.  Not that it is to hide the fact,
> but it certainly is obfuscated.

I think it just shows that his opinions are his, and in no way are
linked to the 'digium opinion'


-- 

Michiel van Baak
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://michiel.vanbaak.eu
GnuPG key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x71C946BD

"Why is it drug addicts and computer aficionados are both called users?"


___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Steve Totaro]

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 8:37 PM, Jay R. Ashworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 10:11:11AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
>> It seems any constructive criticism offered, you take as an attack
>> against Digium.  That is not a good attitude.
>
> I dunno, Steve; I wouldn't call "Digium needs to 'man-up'" constructive
> criticism, myself.  I'd call it an ad-hominem.
>
> Tilghman *does* seem to be a bit of a cheerleader, but there's nothing
> wrong with that... unless you're an *employee*, and you're going out of
> your way to hide it.
>
> Cheers,
> -- jra
> --
> Jay R. Ashworth   Baylink  [EMAIL 
> PROTECTED]
> Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
> Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24
> St Petersburg FL USA  http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
>
> Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
> Those who count the vote decide everything.
>   -- (Joseph Stalin)
>

He is an employee and he does not post from a Digium account or
include that fact in his signature.  Not that it is to hide the fact,
but it certainly is obfuscated.

Thanks,
Steve Totaro

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Steve Totaro]

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Mike Trest - On Travel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> At 11:44 AM 5/16/2008, you wrote:
>>Yes, you could probably add 2 or 3 or 10 or 15 to the number of calls
>>that a particular machine could handle, but from a support perspective, it
>>doesn't matter how many the machine could theoretically handle, it matters
>>how many it could handle in the particular installation in a supportable
>>configuration (those are all those pesky variables we've been talking about).
>
> Absolutely!   Right On!   Tell it like it is!And many other
> cryptic encouragements.
>
> With very large scale deployments, I have a set of numbers available
> in my head
> that work well to predict how many machines will be needed for a
> particular application
> but I wind up being surprised by non-predictable "rate of arrival"  issues.
>
> Since most of my deployments are tied with Television and other promotional
> support, a single reference by the on-screen (or on-radio) commentator, and 
> the
> phones are instantly flooded with thousands of new call setup
> requests.  Indeed,
> one such incident in a NASCAR race with 13M viewers, produced 18,000 new calls
> within two minutes.   The rate of arrival of new calls was dispersed
> to a farm of 60
> Asterisk in three widely separated regions of the
> US.   However,  approximately
> 15,000 calls were actually dropped on the PSTN / SS7 network before
> ever reaching
> three dispersed Asterisk farms.
>
> Those farms were being "fed" inbound calls by a network of
> 250+  Nortel switches with
> millions of subscribers.   However, the Los Angeles area PSTN network
> access facility
> had only 900 spare channels available in that two minute
> period.   Meanwhile, every asterisk
> answered every call and joint the callers into appropriate conference
> groups until every
> single available port was fully occupied. This illustrates that
> such issues of call capacity
> exist completely apart from the Asterisk or whatever machine is used
> for implementation.
>
> So everyone should not be surprised by "it depends" kinds of answers
> to the question
> of concurrent call counts.  This application was so far off the
> typical product specifications
> that nothing published by Digium or anyone else could anticipate
> those surprises that
> come when you least expect.
>
> ..mike..
>

I don't think anyone is expecting any rough numbers from Digium about
the telco's ingress/egress.

Thanks,
Steve Totaro

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Mike Trest - On Travel]

At 11:44 AM 5/16/2008, you wrote:
>Yes, you could probably add 2 or 3 or 10 or 15 to the number of calls
>that a particular machine could handle, but from a support perspective, it
>doesn't matter how many the machine could theoretically handle, it matters
>how many it could handle in the particular installation in a supportable
>configuration (those are all those pesky variables we've been talking about).

Absolutely!   Right On!   Tell it like it is!And many other 
cryptic encouragements.

With very large scale deployments, I have a set of numbers available 
in my head
that work well to predict how many machines will be needed for a 
particular application
but I wind up being surprised by non-predictable "rate of arrival"  issues.

Since most of my deployments are tied with Television and other promotional
support, a single reference by the on-screen (or on-radio) commentator, and the
phones are instantly flooded with thousands of new call setup 
requests.  Indeed,
one such incident in a NASCAR race with 13M viewers, produced 18,000 new calls
within two minutes.   The rate of arrival of new calls was dispersed 
to a farm of 60
Asterisk in three widely separated regions of the 
US.   However,  approximately
15,000 calls were actually dropped on the PSTN / SS7 network before 
ever reaching
three dispersed Asterisk farms.

Those farms were being "fed" inbound calls by a network of 
250+  Nortel switches with
millions of subscribers.   However, the Los Angeles area PSTN network 
access facility
had only 900 spare channels available in that two minute 
period.   Meanwhile, every asterisk
answered every call and joint the callers into appropriate conference 
groups until every
single available port was fully occupied. This illustrates that 
such issues of call capacity
exist completely apart from the Asterisk or whatever machine is used 
for implementation.

So everyone should not be surprised by "it depends" kinds of answers 
to the question
of concurrent call counts.  This application was so far off the 
typical product specifications
that nothing published by Digium or anyone else could anticipate 
those surprises that
come when you least expect.

..mike..




___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Mike Trest - On Travel]

Al, Randy, (and others):

What Al calls "one very weak area" for Asterisk is IMHO a difference 
in market perceptions.
Asterisk is positioned for CPE - PBX - Appliance market which needs 
feature-rich appeal
and mass-market focus.

Using asterisk for "large scale" does not mean that I have used it as 
a large scale PBX.
Indeed, the "FARM" approach that we will be discussing on Friday 23rd 
is for very-large
scale deployments with a reduced-feature-set focus.

Simply put, this is not on Digium'a program for broad market 
push.  Rightfully, Digium is
expecting it's distribution channels to push it  CPE-PBX and mass 
market solutions.

So it is up to the thousands of Asterisk consultants to be aware of 
these techniques
and to serve the much smaller number of clients (mostly VoIP network 
operators)
who need to deploy very large scale networks.

Indeed,  I am now working on a design now that supports 100,000+ 
simultaneous participants
in an application specific deployment.   In this scale of telephony 
application, the issues of
IP bandwidth and PSTN carrier access points are much more difficult 
to manage than anything
related to the Asterisk platform.

If this is your interest, then drop in 
http://voipusersconference.org The context of the discussion
is NON-COMMERCIAL. I have no product or service for sale.  I am just 
discussing a different approach
to using Asterisk.

..mike..




At 09:42 AM 5/16/2008, randulo wrote:
>http://voipusersconference.org
>
>On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Al Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > this is one very weak area for *. There is NO ANSWER.
>
>Hi,
>
>There have been a couple of threads on this subject this week, so I'd
>remind everyone that next Friday's VoIP Users Conference is about
>*large scale* asterisk:
>
>After many requests, we finally have someone to talk on large scale
>implementation of VoIP systems with asterisk. Using a farm of Asterisk
>and Digium cards, tens Of Thousands of simultaneous calls can be made
>and Mike Trest has offered to take it all apart for us to look inside.
>
>More about Mike Trest: http://www.mike.trest.com/
>
>___
>-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
>
>asterisk-users mailing list
>To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users


___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Steve Totaro]

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Steve Totaro
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:18 PM, Tilghman Lesher
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Friday 16 May 2008 19:37:59 Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 10:11:11AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
>>> > It seems any constructive criticism offered, you take as an attack
>>> > against Digium.  That is not a good attitude.
>>>
>>> I dunno, Steve; I wouldn't call "Digium needs to 'man-up'" constructive
>>> criticism, myself.  I'd call it an ad-hominem.
>>>
>>> Tilghman *does* seem to be a bit of a cheerleader, but there's nothing
>>> wrong with that... unless you're an *employee*, and you're going out of
>>> your way to hide it.
>>
>> I'm been a member of this community far longer than I've worked for Digium,
>> and even then, I form my own opinions and I call them as I see them.  If I
>> can't say something because of insider knowledge, I know well enough to keep
>> my mouth shut, but this is not one of those times.  And if there _is_
>> something wrong with the way Digium is doing something, I also am more than
>> happy to put up a big fuss until it's fixed.
>>
>> I'm probably a bit of a loose cannon, but they knew that when they hired
>> me.  ;-)
>>
>> --
>> Tilghman
>>
>
> "Man up" and post some common benchmarks.  It is easy to leave out
> context and take one line to prove your point.  Politicians do it
> every day as of late.
>
> Let me contact Sangoma, I am sure they will do it.  In fact, they
> wanted me to do head to head benchmarks against Digium products.  Is
> Digium game because Sangoma is ready willing and able?
>
> It is about the money, like it or not.  You are going to an Avaya type
> licensing scheme, everything is charged per port.  The box is capable
> of doing more but you turn it off until you get more money.  It's like
> the Definity G3s I have worked with.  The box can do everything but
> until you pony up, it is not activated.
>
> Any SwitchVox sale I have tried to pitch dies quickly and this is even
> involving Switchvox reps on a conference call.
>
> How about if I don't want support and use my own hardware, then can do
> I still have to pay to upgrade to SMB or whatever?  Follow the logic?
> Anyways, the profit margin on "appliances" is way too low.  I might as
> well sell 3Coms or NECs if I am selling boxes with per seat license
> fees and have to hack the box to do any customization.
>
> They are not being conservative, when all you do is put a CC and then
> a button shows up to upgrade, this is the same hardware mind you
>
> Guess I will stick to my DL 380s and (if a GUI is required) FreePBX or
> Druid (if it tests out ok).
>
> Thanks,
> Steve Totaro
>

Anyways, isn't Asterisk 1.2.x and FC6 EOL?

Thanks,
Steve Totaro

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Steve Totaro]

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:18 PM, Tilghman Lesher
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 16 May 2008 19:37:59 Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
>> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 10:11:11AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
>> > It seems any constructive criticism offered, you take as an attack
>> > against Digium.  That is not a good attitude.
>>
>> I dunno, Steve; I wouldn't call "Digium needs to 'man-up'" constructive
>> criticism, myself.  I'd call it an ad-hominem.
>>
>> Tilghman *does* seem to be a bit of a cheerleader, but there's nothing
>> wrong with that... unless you're an *employee*, and you're going out of
>> your way to hide it.
>
> I'm been a member of this community far longer than I've worked for Digium,
> and even then, I form my own opinions and I call them as I see them.  If I
> can't say something because of insider knowledge, I know well enough to keep
> my mouth shut, but this is not one of those times.  And if there _is_
> something wrong with the way Digium is doing something, I also am more than
> happy to put up a big fuss until it's fixed.
>
> I'm probably a bit of a loose cannon, but they knew that when they hired
> me.  ;-)
>
> --
> Tilghman
>

"Man up" and post some common benchmarks.  It is easy to leave out
context and take one line to prove your point.  Politicians do it
every day as of late.

Let me contact Sangoma, I am sure they will do it.  In fact, they
wanted me to do head to head benchmarks against Digium products.  Is
Digium game because Sangoma is ready willing and able?

It is about the money, like it or not.  You are going to an Avaya type
licensing scheme, everything is charged per port.  The box is capable
of doing more but you turn it off until you get more money.  It's like
the Definity G3s I have worked with.  The box can do everything but
until you pony up, it is not activated.

Any SwitchVox sale I have tried to pitch dies quickly and this is even
involving Switchvox reps on a conference call.

How about if I don't want support and use my own hardware, then can do
I still have to pay to upgrade to SMB or whatever?  Follow the logic?
Anyways, the profit margin on "appliances" is way too low.  I might as
well sell 3Coms or NECs if I am selling boxes with per seat license
fees and have to hack the box to do any customization.

They are not being conservative, when all you do is put a CC and then
a button shows up to upgrade, this is the same hardware mind you

Guess I will stick to my DL 380s and (if a GUI is required) FreePBX or
Druid (if it tests out ok).

Thanks,
Steve Totaro

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Tilghman Lesher]

On Friday 16 May 2008 19:37:59 Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 10:11:11AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
> > It seems any constructive criticism offered, you take as an attack
> > against Digium.  That is not a good attitude.
>
> I dunno, Steve; I wouldn't call "Digium needs to 'man-up'" constructive
> criticism, myself.  I'd call it an ad-hominem.
>
> Tilghman *does* seem to be a bit of a cheerleader, but there's nothing
> wrong with that... unless you're an *employee*, and you're going out of
> your way to hide it.

I'm been a member of this community far longer than I've worked for Digium,
and even then, I form my own opinions and I call them as I see them.  If I
can't say something because of insider knowledge, I know well enough to keep
my mouth shut, but this is not one of those times.  And if there _is_
something wrong with the way Digium is doing something, I also am more than
happy to put up a big fuss until it's fixed.

I'm probably a bit of a loose cannon, but they knew that when they hired
me.  ;-)

-- 
Tilghman

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Jay R. Ashworth]

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 10:54:17AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
> I am very aware of this but do you think that the SoHo box (and it's
> artificial cap) is maxing out no matter what the users are doing?  If
> so, then why can you just upgrade concurrent use via a CC and the
> website?

So, Steve are you saying that they're quoting conservatively, and
you're *unhappy* with them for that?

I think it's great, myself.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth   Baylink  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA  http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274

 Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
 Those who count the vote decide everything.
   -- (Joseph Stalin)

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Jay R. Ashworth]

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 10:11:11AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
> It seems any constructive criticism offered, you take as an attack
> against Digium.  That is not a good attitude.

I dunno, Steve; I wouldn't call "Digium needs to 'man-up'" constructive
criticism, myself.  I'd call it an ad-hominem.

Tilghman *does* seem to be a bit of a cheerleader, but there's nothing
wrong with that... unless you're an *employee*, and you're going out of
your way to hide it. 

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth   Baylink  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA  http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274

 Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
 Those who count the vote decide everything.
   -- (Joseph Stalin)

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Sherwood McGowan]

Alexander Olekhnovich wrote:
> Hi Asterisk Users,
>
> I'm interested in how many concurrent calls Asterisk can process 
> without troubles. I mean 1 Asterisk server (software) like either 
> proxy or media server (any numbers will be appropriate).
>
> 1. Is there any limitations by the software? What is this number?
> 2. What is the maximum count of concurrent calls you've ever seen/tested?
>
> -- 
> Thanks in advance
> Alexander Olekhnovich
> 
>
> ___
> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
>
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Rather than jump into the heavy list of replies, in which there's some 
heated discussion, I thought I'd offer a quick $0.02:

Asterisk's concurrent call capabilities is limited (as far as I know) 
only by the hardware you're using and the implementation. By this I mean 
that the amount of transcoding, meetme conferences, SIP/IAX/Zap 
channels, recording, CDR backend, etc...all take their toll on your 
hardware's capabilities.

I'll give you two examples:
1. On a Dual 1.5Ghz XEON, 2GB RAM server running CentOS 4.5(unsure on 
this anymore) with only Asterisk 1.4 TRUNK in 1995 in a SIP only 
environment with ONLY ulaw encoding, I've seen 500+ concurrent calls 
with over 2K users on a single machine. All clients were set for 
canreinvite=no, and qualify=yes. This system did not show degradation of 
performance.

2. I'm currently working with a client that has a Dual 2.5 Ghz, 2GB RAM 
server, running Debian Etch. They are running two EM Wink T1 Trunks, and 
51 Zap phones locally running through Adtran Total Access Channel Banks, 
12 POTS lines running through a Rhino channel bank, and 27 SIP Phones. 
Concurrent calls only run at around 43 calls currently, although I've 
seen it as high as 53, and ALL calls are recorded other than local 
spying on channels and inter-extension calls. Additionally, this server 
has PostgreSQL and Apache running on it to allow administration to 
review CDRs and pull recordings, and a Zabbix monitoring agent daemon 
sending data to a local network Zabbix server.  This server showed 
little or no degradation in call quality or service (even with Sox and 
Speexmix running in the background converting recordings via a 
background script) until just recently when we changed T1 providers and 
got EM Wink instead of the requested PRI. Before we had 99.999% of all 
calls complete from dial to hangup with no issues. Now we're at 98.8%, 
with calls being dropped in midconversation. I have not found the answer 
to what is causing the server to drop calls, other than after the 
switchover to EM_W our Zaptel accuracy started degrading. We are in the 
process of figuring out how we can resolve this, including possible 
hardware upgrades (which were already planned for handling recordings 
better)

I hope these two examples help show you how two similar machines can 
vary drastically in performance with similar hardware. Differences in 
implementation make a BIG difference.

Slainte,
Sherwood McGowan


___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Steve Edwards]

On Fri, 16 May 2008, Steve Totaro wrote:

> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:47 AM, David Backeberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Has anybody ever tried to roll their own VoIP or Zaptel load
>> simulator? How did they do it?
>>
> SIPP can help with benchmarking SIP calls and you can loop back T1
> calls if you have two machines with T1 cards or even one machine with
> multiple T1 ports.
>
> Then just look at top.  Make a few test calls and see if they are choppy

What value do you look at with top? (Especially with multiple 
processor/core servers.) I have an old 1.2.7 server with "custom features" 
hacked in that leaks memory. We know audio quality goes to hell when 
Asterisk hoards more than 100mb.

How do you quantify "choppy?" Anybody volunteer to write "app-MOS?"

Thanks in advance,

Steve Edwards  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Voice: +1-760-468-3867 PST
Newline Fax: +1-760-731-3000

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Sherwood McGowan]

David Backeberg wrote:
>>> Has anybody ever tried to roll their own VoIP or Zaptel load
>>> simulator? How did they do it?
>>>   
>> SIPP can help with benchmarking SIP calls and you can loop back T1
>> calls if you have two machines with T1 cards or even one machine with
>> multiple T1 ports.
>> 
>
> SIPp looks like it's exactly the right tool for voip load generation /
> simulation. Sweet!
>
> ___
> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
>
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>   
I've used SIPp before for benchmarking, it works quite well

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Tilghman Lesher]

On Friday 16 May 2008 11:00:09 Steve Totaro wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
> > On Friday 16 May 2008 09:11:11 Steve Totaro wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
> >> > Digium is under no obligation to give you numbers for your own
> >> > hardware. That's up to you (and you get to control your own set of
> >> > variables).
> >>
> >> While under no obligation, it certainly would help sales.
> >
> > Whose sales?  If you're talking about the appliances, then yes, I'm sure
> > the publication of those numbers help with sales.  If you mean your own
> > sales, well, you're right, Digium's numbers probably don't help your
> > sales.  You could certainly put together a lab and do your own testing. 
> > Why don't you do that?
>
> Sales in general.  You don't need to benchmark everything, just a few
> basic benchmarks, maybe gear it to your hardware and SIP as a gateway,
> then build from there.  Most companies do this.

Precisely.  The numbers Digium gives are geared to their own machines.

> >> This is in the style of legacy proprietary systems and anther reason
> >> why the sale cycle goes a little tougher than a custom job.  Asterisk
> >> with FreePBX (and maybe Druid) eliminate these artificial constraints
> >> on usage.
> >
> > Yes, but the point of those constraints is to permit support a manageable
> > job.  Yes, you could probably add 2 or 3 or 10 or 15 to the number of
> > calls that a particular machine could handle, but from a support
> > perspective, it doesn't matter how many the machine could theoretically
> > handle, it matters how many it could handle in the particular
> > installation in a supportable configuration (those are all those pesky
> > variables we've been talking about).
>
> Maybe that is what the official corporate answer is or, you were
> brainwashed to believe, but I tend to think it is to sell SMB and
> Enterprise software and support.  It is all about money.  I didn't
> fall off the turnip truck yesterday.

Now who's on the attack here?  Instead of taking issue with the logic, you're
personally attacking me, and I do take offense.  The logic is sound, and it is
precisely the reason why we say "X machine supports Y users".  It makes it
easier for the support department, that they don't have to deal with edge
cases of "Well, if you're doing the maximum transcoding AND recording AND
conferences AND a few other things, then maybe it won't support Y users."
No, we want the numbers solid; we never want it to be said that we sold what
we could not support.

-- 
Tilghman

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Steve Totaro]

Inline

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Tilghman Lesher
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 16 May 2008 09:11:11 Steve Totaro wrote:
>> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
>> > On Friday 16 May 2008 06:59:15 Al Baker wrote:
>> >> this is one very weak area for *. There is NO ANSWER.
>> >> Now in fairness to *, the answer DOES depend on a # of critical
>> >> variables. How much CODEC to CODEC transcription is going on.
>> >> How many MEET Me conferences are going on.
>> >>
>> >> On the other hand, DIGIUM COULD, since they have a lab take 4-5
>> >> 'standard' workloads
>> >> on two of the most common hardware boxes, say Dell & HP, and run x # of
>> >> transcriptions and
>> >> show the #'s.
>> >> Then x # of meet-me conferences.
>> >>
>> >> Face it the DB Industry did this 15-2- YEARS ago with TP benckmarks
>> >>
>> >> Rockwell and NORTEL can tell you this for every piece of hardware they
>> >> sell.
>> >>
>> >> It is a an area DIGIUM need to "man-up" in.
>> >
>> > I'm not sure what your problem is with Digium.  They sell several
>> > machines for which they publish very specific numbers as to how many
>> > users those machines will support (the Switchvox appliances).  Note that
>> > these machines are configurable only from the web interface, and they do
>> > not allow you to install additional software.  In other words, when they
>> > give you a specific machine, with a ton of those variables controlled,
>> > they can give you a number.
>> >
>> > Digium is under no obligation to give you numbers for your own hardware.
>> > That's up to you (and you get to control your own set of variables).
>>
>> It seems any constructive criticism offered, you take as an attack
>> against Digium.  That is not a good attitude.
>
> I don't see how you figured out what I was thinking.  Al said Digium doesn't
> publish any numbers, and I responded, saying that he was incorrect; Digium
> does indeed publish numbers (they're just not for his hardware).

"I'm not sure what your problem is with Digium."  Proof, period.

>
>> While under no obligation, it certainly would help sales.
>
> Whose sales?  If you're talking about the appliances, then yes, I'm sure the
> publication of those numbers help with sales.  If you mean your own sales,
> well, you're right, Digium's numbers probably don't help your sales.  You
> could certainly put together a lab and do your own testing.  Why don't you do
> that?

Sales in general.  You don't need to benchmark everything, just a few
basic benchmarks, maybe gear it to your hardware and SIP as a gateway,
then build from there.  Most companies do this.

I have my own lab and bechmarks but they are for Sangoma hardware and
very specific servers and all geared to callcenter apps.

>
>> I take "Appliance Numbers" with a grain of salt.  The sales model of
>> SwitchVox (and most others) is based on number of ports (SoHO, SMB,
>> Enterprise) not maximum number of ports that the appliance could
>> actually handle if not artificially constrained.
>
> Consider the maximum number of ports that Switchvox will enable on a single
> machine and consider that the maximum number that they're willing to support
> comfortably without running into some hard limit.  You never want to run into
> a hard limit in the field anyway.

High powered ervers are cheap and so are appliances once you settle on
an enclosure and guts and start cranking out boxes.  Hard limit
common.

>
>> This is in the style of legacy proprietary systems and anther reason
>> why the sale cycle goes a little tougher than a custom job.  Asterisk
>> with FreePBX (and maybe Druid) eliminate these artificial constraints
>> on usage.
>
> Yes, but the point of those constraints is to permit support a manageable
> job.  Yes, you could probably add 2 or 3 or 10 or 15 to the number of calls
> that a particular machine could handle, but from a support perspective, it
> doesn't matter how many the machine could theoretically handle, it matters
> how many it could handle in the particular installation in a supportable
> configuration (those are all those pesky variables we've been talking about).

Maybe that is what the official corporate answer is or, you were
brainwashed to believe, but I tend to think it is to sell SMB and
Enterprise software and support.  It is all about money.  I didn't
fall off the turnip truck yesterday.

>
>> I have load averages and CPU usage stats in my mind for all the
>> various usages and hardware through experience in my mind.  Of course
>> they are only valuable to the exact setup I was doing.
>
> Precisely.
>
> --
> Tilghman
>
> ___
> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
>
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

as

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Tilghman Lesher]

On Friday 16 May 2008 09:11:11 Steve Totaro wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
> > On Friday 16 May 2008 06:59:15 Al Baker wrote:
> >> this is one very weak area for *. There is NO ANSWER.
> >> Now in fairness to *, the answer DOES depend on a # of critical
> >> variables. How much CODEC to CODEC transcription is going on.
> >> How many MEET Me conferences are going on.
> >>
> >> On the other hand, DIGIUM COULD, since they have a lab take 4-5
> >> 'standard' workloads
> >> on two of the most common hardware boxes, say Dell & HP, and run x # of
> >> transcriptions and
> >> show the #'s.
> >> Then x # of meet-me conferences.
> >>
> >> Face it the DB Industry did this 15-2- YEARS ago with TP benckmarks
> >>
> >> Rockwell and NORTEL can tell you this for every piece of hardware they
> >> sell.
> >>
> >> It is a an area DIGIUM need to "man-up" in.
> >
> > I'm not sure what your problem is with Digium.  They sell several
> > machines for which they publish very specific numbers as to how many
> > users those machines will support (the Switchvox appliances).  Note that
> > these machines are configurable only from the web interface, and they do
> > not allow you to install additional software.  In other words, when they
> > give you a specific machine, with a ton of those variables controlled,
> > they can give you a number.
> >
> > Digium is under no obligation to give you numbers for your own hardware.
> > That's up to you (and you get to control your own set of variables).
>
> It seems any constructive criticism offered, you take as an attack
> against Digium.  That is not a good attitude.

I don't see how you figured out what I was thinking.  Al said Digium doesn't
publish any numbers, and I responded, saying that he was incorrect; Digium
does indeed publish numbers (they're just not for his hardware).

> While under no obligation, it certainly would help sales.

Whose sales?  If you're talking about the appliances, then yes, I'm sure the
publication of those numbers help with sales.  If you mean your own sales,
well, you're right, Digium's numbers probably don't help your sales.  You
could certainly put together a lab and do your own testing.  Why don't you do
that?

> I take "Appliance Numbers" with a grain of salt.  The sales model of
> SwitchVox (and most others) is based on number of ports (SoHO, SMB,
> Enterprise) not maximum number of ports that the appliance could
> actually handle if not artificially constrained.

Consider the maximum number of ports that Switchvox will enable on a single
machine and consider that the maximum number that they're willing to support
comfortably without running into some hard limit.  You never want to run into
a hard limit in the field anyway.

> This is in the style of legacy proprietary systems and anther reason
> why the sale cycle goes a little tougher than a custom job.  Asterisk
> with FreePBX (and maybe Druid) eliminate these artificial constraints
> on usage.

Yes, but the point of those constraints is to permit support a manageable
job.  Yes, you could probably add 2 or 3 or 10 or 15 to the number of calls
that a particular machine could handle, but from a support perspective, it
doesn't matter how many the machine could theoretically handle, it matters
how many it could handle in the particular installation in a supportable
configuration (those are all those pesky variables we've been talking about).

> I have load averages and CPU usage stats in my mind for all the
> various usages and hardware through experience in my mind.  Of course
> they are only valuable to the exact setup I was doing.

Precisely.

-- 
Tilghman

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Steve Totaro]

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 10:42 AM, John Signorello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Steve Totaro wrote:
>
> I'm not sure what your problem is with Digium.  They sell several machines
> for which they publish very specific numbers as to how many users those
> machines will support (the Switchvox appliances).  Note that these machines
> are configurable only from the web interface, and they do not allow you to
> install additional software.  In other words, when they give you a specific
> machine, with a ton of those variables controlled, they can give you a
> number.
>
> Digium is under no obligation to give you numbers for your own hardware.
> That's up to you (and you get to control your own set of variables).
>
> --
> Tilghman
>
>
>
> To prove that the the numbers are artificial for SwitchVox and profit
> driven:
>
> Boot your SwitchVox in single user mode.  Create an account with root
> privileges.  Login via SSH and you can install any software you want
> and have access to top and whatever else you care to use.  Switchvox
> is running Fedora Core 6 and Asterisk 1.2  just an FYI  
>
> Thanks,
> Steve Totaro
>
> ___
> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
>
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>
>
> Concurrent users is only valid if you can specify what all of the concurrent
> users are doing.
>
> If you have 13 users engaged in phone conversations, you have a different
> load and system
> dynamic versus 4 users in conversations and 9 users checking voice mail and
> perhaps recording
> new greetings.
>
> The artificiality arises when you use your "concurrent user" figures to
> portray your product as better
> than the other guys without qualifying what the "concurrent users" are
> doing.
>

I am very aware of this but do you think that the SoHo box (and it's
artificial cap) is maxing out no matter what the users are doing?  If
so, then why can you just upgrade concurrent use via a CC and the
website?

I don't have a product per se.  I am generally against "Appliances"
because they are moving back to the proprietary system pricing scheme
of per port and cut my bottom line.  They also generally have a lot of
legalese attached.

My "product" is built to meet the current and future needs of the
customer.  This is all part of the sales and quoting cycle.

Thanks,
Steve Totaro

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Matt Watson]

You can NOT use bogomips as any kind of measurement for system performance.

First of all, Bogomips is a linux-specific thing and not available on other OS 
that Asterisk runs on.

The second, and far more important point.  "Bogo" is taken from the word 
"Bogus".  Bogomips are not a measurement of system performance, it is simply a 
number used for calibrating parts of the kernel for your CPU.

The problem with coming up with these numbers of concurrent calls is that 
Asterisk is not a "complete package".  Meaning, it's the software portion only, 
most other systems when you get them are going to be the software & the 
hardware in one package, the 2 go hand in hand and are specifically designed 
for each other.

Asterisk does not fall into that category unless you invest in one of the many 
asterisk appliances out there.  Digium has no control over what hardware you 
are going to run Asterisk on, so they can't provide you with these numbers.

Heres a few questions at the top of my head that I think would influence the 
answer:

are you recording calls? are you transcoding calls?  are you using T1s or 
SIP/IAX trunks? Did you buy the 7.2krpm, 10krpm, or 15krpm hard-drives?  Do 
your harddrives have 8mb, 16mb, or 32mb cache? Did you buy the better SAS 
controller?  Did you buy 667mhz or 800mhz ram? Are you using EXT3, ReisferFS, 
XFS, JFS, ZFS, UFS?  Are you using AGIs?  Are you using MeetMEs? How many?  
Whats the average length of the conferences?  Are devices using re-invites to 
take Asterisk out of the call loop?

The list goes on and on... and every single one of those answers is going to 
influence that number for "How many calls can my system handle?"

--
Matt

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Backeberg
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 9:47 AM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

I wonder if there's a proportion where somebody could take some
standard kernel output, say bogomips,
and guesstimate some proportionality from that. As in: bogomips says
this, expect ballpark 120 SIP over codec calls.
It certainly seems like there could be some kind of asterisk
benchmarking utility kindof like Sandra for Windows. I know there are
a gazillion variables in asterisk, and that's why asterisk is so
powerful. But some benchmarking utility would at least allow some
(even if phony baloney) relative comparisons between similar hardware.

Has anybody ever tried to roll their own VoIP or Zaptel load
simulator? How did they do it?

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 7:59 AM, Al Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> this is one very weak area for *. There is NO ANSWER.
> Now in fairness to *, the answer DOES depend on a # of critical variables.
> How much CODEC to CODEC transcription is going on.
> How many MEET Me conferences are going on.
>
> On the other hand, DIGIUM COULD, since they have a lab take 4-5
> 'standard' workloads
> on two of the most common hardware boxes, say Dell & HP, and run x # of
> transcriptions and
> show the #'s.
> Then x # of meet-me conferences.
>
> Face it the DB Industry did this 15-2- YEARS ago with TP benckmarks
>
> Rockwell and NORTEL can tell you this for every piece of hardware they sell.
>
> It is a an area DIGIUM need to "man-up" in.
>
> Alexey Shimeshov wrote:
>> Hello, Alexander.
>>
>> AO> Hi Asterisk Users,
>>
>> AO> I'm interested in how many concurrent calls Asterisk can process without
>> AO> troubles. I mean 1 Asterisk server (software) like either proxy or media
>> AO> server (any numbers will be appropriate).
>>
>> AO> 1. Is there any limitations by the software? What is this number?
>> AO> 2. What is the maximum count of concurrent calls you've ever seen/tested?
>>
>> Look at this example
>>
>> http://www.transnexus.com/White%20Papers/asterisk_V1-4-11_performance.htm
>>
>>
>
> ___
> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
>
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[John Signorello]

Steve Totaro wrote:

I'm not sure what your problem is with Digium.  They sell several machines
for which they publish very specific numbers as to how many users those
machines will support (the Switchvox appliances).  Note that these machines
are configurable only from the web interface, and they do not allow you to
install additional software.  In other words, when they give you a specific
machine, with a ton of those variables controlled, they can give you a number.

Digium is under no obligation to give you numbers for your own hardware.
That's up to you (and you get to control your own set of variables).

--
Tilghman




To prove that the the numbers are artificial for SwitchVox and profit driven:

Boot your SwitchVox in single user mode.  Create an account with root
privileges.  Login via SSH and you can install any software you want
and have access to top and whatever else you care to use.  Switchvox
is running Fedora Core 6 and Asterisk 1.2  just an FYI  

Thanks,
Steve Totaro

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
  


Concurrent users is only valid if you can specify what all of the 
concurrent users are doing.


If you have 13 users engaged in phone conversations, you have a 
different load and system
dynamic versus 4 users in conversations and 9 users checking voice mail 
and perhaps recording

new greetings.

The artificiality arises when you use your "concurrent user" figures to 
portray your product as better
than the other guys without qualifying what the "concurrent users" are 
doing.


--

John Signorello
Managing Partner
ISPBX LLC

Bus: 866 GO ISPBX ext 2000
Dir: 973-841-2061
Cell: 973-534-0888

http://ispbx.com
http://cogoblue.com

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Steve Totaro]

>
> I'm not sure what your problem is with Digium.  They sell several machines
> for which they publish very specific numbers as to how many users those
> machines will support (the Switchvox appliances).  Note that these machines
> are configurable only from the web interface, and they do not allow you to
> install additional software.  In other words, when they give you a specific
> machine, with a ton of those variables controlled, they can give you a number.
>
> Digium is under no obligation to give you numbers for your own hardware.
> That's up to you (and you get to control your own set of variables).
>
> --
> Tilghman
>

To prove that the the numbers are artificial for SwitchVox and profit driven:

Boot your SwitchVox in single user mode.  Create an account with root
privileges.  Login via SSH and you can install any software you want
and have access to top and whatever else you care to use.  Switchvox
is running Fedora Core 6 and Asterisk 1.2  just an FYI  

Thanks,
Steve Totaro

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Steve Totaro]

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Tilghman Lesher
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 16 May 2008 06:59:15 Al Baker wrote:
>> this is one very weak area for *. There is NO ANSWER.
>> Now in fairness to *, the answer DOES depend on a # of critical variables.
>> How much CODEC to CODEC transcription is going on.
>> How many MEET Me conferences are going on.
>>
>> On the other hand, DIGIUM COULD, since they have a lab take 4-5
>> 'standard' workloads
>> on two of the most common hardware boxes, say Dell & HP, and run x # of
>> transcriptions and
>> show the #'s.
>> Then x # of meet-me conferences.
>>
>> Face it the DB Industry did this 15-2- YEARS ago with TP benckmarks
>>
>> Rockwell and NORTEL can tell you this for every piece of hardware they
>> sell.
>>
>> It is a an area DIGIUM need to "man-up" in.
>
> I'm not sure what your problem is with Digium.  They sell several machines
> for which they publish very specific numbers as to how many users those
> machines will support (the Switchvox appliances).  Note that these machines
> are configurable only from the web interface, and they do not allow you to
> install additional software.  In other words, when they give you a specific
> machine, with a ton of those variables controlled, they can give you a number.
>
> Digium is under no obligation to give you numbers for your own hardware.
> That's up to you (and you get to control your own set of variables).
>
> --
> Tilghman
>

Tilghman,

It seems any constructive criticism offered, you take as an attack
against Digium.  That is not a good attitude.

While under no obligation, it certainly would help sales.

I take "Appliance Numbers" with a grain of salt.  The sales model of
SwitchVox (and most others) is based on number of ports (SoHO, SMB,
Enterprise) not maximum number of ports that the appliance could
actually handle if not artificially constrained.

This is in the style of legacy proprietary systems and anther reason
why the sale cycle goes a little tougher than a custom job.  Asterisk
with FreePBX (and maybe Druid) eliminate these artificial constraints
on usage.

I have load averages and CPU usage stats in my mind for all the
various usages and hardware through experience in my mind.  Of course
they are only valuable to the exact setup I was doing.

Thanks,
Steve Totaro

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[David Backeberg]

>> Has anybody ever tried to roll their own VoIP or Zaptel load
>> simulator? How did they do it?
>
> SIPP can help with benchmarking SIP calls and you can loop back T1
> calls if you have two machines with T1 cards or even one machine with
> multiple T1 ports.

SIPp looks like it's exactly the right tool for voip load generation /
simulation. Sweet!

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Steve Totaro]

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:47 AM, David Backeberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> Has anybody ever tried to roll their own VoIP or Zaptel load
> simulator? How did they do it?
>

SIPP can help with benchmarking SIP calls and you can loop back T1
calls if you have two machines with T1 cards or even one machine with
multiple T1 ports.

Then just look at top.  Make a few test calls and see if they are choppy

Thanks,
Steve Totaro

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[David Backeberg]

> I'm interested in how many concurrent calls Asterisk can process without
> troubles. I mean 1 Asterisk server (software) like either proxy or media
> server (any numbers will be appropriate).

Since one standard answer to this question is: "it depends on how
you're using it",

The ideal situation is that people could rattle off statistics of
their eventual load, and be able to size their hardware purchase
accordingly. The reality is that while that's hard, we can do the next
best thing, which is once you have the hardware running asterisk, get
historical data about your real-world asterisk load.

We're running the open SNMP daemon, and we've configured the open
software project Cacti to do SNMP polling against our cpu load. We now
have a few months of data on how two systems running Zaptel cards,
with no VoIP are holding up under load. Our business is amazingly
seasonal, not quite as bad as H & R Block, but similar scenario where
we're very busy parts of the year, and the rest of the year, not so
much.

Our results: at our US Eastern time zone business, load peaks a little
after 2pm EST/EDT, most business days, and dramatically tails off most
days. Once we have more months of data we'll also be able to more
accurately profile the seasonality of our business, as well as make
some predictions about next peaks from previous peaks, given the
growth rate of our business.

Hope this helps people!

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Tilghman Lesher]

On Friday 16 May 2008 06:59:15 Al Baker wrote:
> this is one very weak area for *. There is NO ANSWER.
> Now in fairness to *, the answer DOES depend on a # of critical variables.
> How much CODEC to CODEC transcription is going on.
> How many MEET Me conferences are going on.
>
> On the other hand, DIGIUM COULD, since they have a lab take 4-5
> 'standard' workloads
> on two of the most common hardware boxes, say Dell & HP, and run x # of
> transcriptions and
> show the #'s.
> Then x # of meet-me conferences.
>
> Face it the DB Industry did this 15-2- YEARS ago with TP benckmarks
>
> Rockwell and NORTEL can tell you this for every piece of hardware they
> sell.
>
> It is a an area DIGIUM need to "man-up" in.

I'm not sure what your problem is with Digium.  They sell several machines
for which they publish very specific numbers as to how many users those
machines will support (the Switchvox appliances).  Note that these machines
are configurable only from the web interface, and they do not allow you to
install additional software.  In other words, when they give you a specific
machine, with a ton of those variables controlled, they can give you a number.

Digium is under no obligation to give you numbers for your own hardware.
That's up to you (and you get to control your own set of variables).

-- 
Tilghman

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[David Backeberg]

I wonder if there's a proportion where somebody could take some
standard kernel output, say bogomips,
and guesstimate some proportionality from that. As in: bogomips says
this, expect ballpark 120 SIP over codec calls.
It certainly seems like there could be some kind of asterisk
benchmarking utility kindof like Sandra for Windows. I know there are
a gazillion variables in asterisk, and that's why asterisk is so
powerful. But some benchmarking utility would at least allow some
(even if phony baloney) relative comparisons between similar hardware.

Has anybody ever tried to roll their own VoIP or Zaptel load
simulator? How did they do it?

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 7:59 AM, Al Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> this is one very weak area for *. There is NO ANSWER.
> Now in fairness to *, the answer DOES depend on a # of critical variables.
> How much CODEC to CODEC transcription is going on.
> How many MEET Me conferences are going on.
>
> On the other hand, DIGIUM COULD, since they have a lab take 4-5
> 'standard' workloads
> on two of the most common hardware boxes, say Dell & HP, and run x # of
> transcriptions and
> show the #'s.
> Then x # of meet-me conferences.
>
> Face it the DB Industry did this 15-2- YEARS ago with TP benckmarks
>
> Rockwell and NORTEL can tell you this for every piece of hardware they sell.
>
> It is a an area DIGIUM need to "man-up" in.
>
> Alexey Shimeshov wrote:
>> Hello, Alexander.
>>
>> AO> Hi Asterisk Users,
>>
>> AO> I'm interested in how many concurrent calls Asterisk can process without
>> AO> troubles. I mean 1 Asterisk server (software) like either proxy or media
>> AO> server (any numbers will be appropriate).
>>
>> AO> 1. Is there any limitations by the software? What is this number?
>> AO> 2. What is the maximum count of concurrent calls you've ever seen/tested?
>>
>> Look at this example
>>
>> http://www.transnexus.com/White%20Papers/asterisk_V1-4-11_performance.htm
>>
>>
>
> ___
> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
>
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[randulo]

http://voipusersconference.org

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Al Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> this is one very weak area for *. There is NO ANSWER.

Hi,

There have been a couple of threads on this subject this week, so I'd
remind everyone that next Friday's VoIP Users Conference is about
*large scale* asterisk:

After many requests, we finally have someone to talk on large scale
implementation of VoIP systems with asterisk. Using a farm of Asterisk
and Digium cards, tens Of Thousands of simultaneous calls can be made
and Mike Trest has offered to take it all apart for us to look inside.

More about Mike Trest: http://www.mike.trest.com/

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Al Baker]

this is one very weak area for *. There is NO ANSWER.
Now in fairness to *, the answer DOES depend on a # of critical variables.
How much CODEC to CODEC transcription is going on.
How many MEET Me conferences are going on.

On the other hand, DIGIUM COULD, since they have a lab take 4-5 
'standard' workloads
on two of the most common hardware boxes, say Dell & HP, and run x # of 
transcriptions and
show the #'s.
Then x # of meet-me conferences.

Face it the DB Industry did this 15-2- YEARS ago with TP benckmarks

Rockwell and NORTEL can tell you this for every piece of hardware they sell.

It is a an area DIGIUM need to "man-up" in.

Alexey Shimeshov wrote:
> Hello, Alexander.
>
> AO> Hi Asterisk Users,
>
> AO> I'm interested in how many concurrent calls Asterisk can process without
> AO> troubles. I mean 1 Asterisk server (software) like either proxy or media
> AO> server (any numbers will be appropriate).
>
> AO> 1. Is there any limitations by the software? What is this number?
> AO> 2. What is the maximum count of concurrent calls you've ever seen/tested?
>
> Look at this example
>
> http://www.transnexus.com/White%20Papers/asterisk_V1-4-11_performance.htm
>
>   

___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Alexey Shimeshov]

Hello, Alexander.

AO> Hi Asterisk Users,

AO> I'm interested in how many concurrent calls Asterisk can process without
AO> troubles. I mean 1 Asterisk server (software) like either proxy or media
AO> server (any numbers will be appropriate).

AO> 1. Is there any limitations by the software? What is this number?
AO> 2. What is the maximum count of concurrent calls you've ever seen/tested?

Look at this example

http://www.transnexus.com/White%20Papers/asterisk_V1-4-11_performance.htm

-- 
 Alexey  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

[asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Alexander Olekhnovich]

Hi Asterisk Users,

I'm interested in how many concurrent calls Asterisk can process without
troubles. I mean 1 Asterisk server (software) like either proxy or media
server (any numbers will be appropriate).

1. Is there any limitations by the software? What is this number?
2. What is the maximum count of concurrent calls you've ever seen/tested?

-- 
Thanks in advance
Alexander Olekhnovich
___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --

asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users