Re: [Asterisk-Users] How "expensive" are the different codecs? (Regarding CPU time)
We changed from Fedora to Debian and saw the following increase in performance: Before: G723 GSM ULAW ALAW G726 ADPCM SLINR LPC10 G729A SPEEX ILBC G723 - - - - - - - - - - - GSM - - 6 615 6 522 - - 192 ULAW - 128 - 111 2 118 - - 188 ALAW - 128 1 -11 2 118 - - 188 G726 - 1361010 -10 926 - - 196 ADPCM - 128 2 211 - 118 - - 188 SLINR - 127 1 110 1 -17 - - 187 LPC10 - 241 115 115 124 115 114 - - - 301 G729A - - - - - - - - - - - SPEEX - - - - - - - - - - - ILBC - 144181827181734 - - - After: g723 gsm ulaw alaw g726 adpcm slin lpc10 g729 speex ilbc g723 - - - - - - - - - - - gsm - - 2 2 3 2 1 6 - -14 ulaw - 3 - 1 3 2 1 6 - -14 alaw - 3 1 - 3 2 1 6 - -14 g726 - 4 3 3 - 3 2 7 - -15 adpcm - 3 2 2 3 - 1 6 - -14 slin - 2 1 1 2 1 - 5 - -13 lpc10 - 4 3 3 4 3 2 - - -15 g729 - - - - - - - - - - - speex - - - - - - - - - - - ilbc - 4 3 3 4 3 2 7 - - - Of course we did also upgrade from a PIII 500 to dual 3 GHz Xeon processors, but I doubt that had anything to do with it. el Flynn wrote: Michael Vogel wrote: Thanks! That helps me a lot. Am I right that this chart is calculated depending my machine's speed: yes, the numbers will vary depending on your system load. ### zhad*CLI> show translation Translation times between formats (in milliseconds) Source Format (Rows) Destination Format(Columns) G723 GSM ULAW ALAW G726 ADPCM SLINR LPC10 G729A SPEEX ILBC G723 - - - - - - - - - - - GSM - -131347151243 - 253 124 ULAW -41 - 136 4 132 - 242 113 ALAW -41 1 -36 4 132 - 242 113 G726 -824343 -454273 - 283 154 ADPCM -43 4 438 - 334 - 244 115 SLINR -40 1 135 3 -31 - 241 112 LPC10 -581919532118 - - 259 130 G729A - - - - - - - - - - - SPEEX -52131347151243 - - 124 ILBC -59202054221950 - 260 - zhad*CLI> ### Encoding to speex or ilbc seems to be too heavy for my machine ;-) hmm.. those numbers look a little... high... does it show the same values when your box is idle? mine gives the following, when there's no traffic going through: demo*CLI> show translation Translation times between formats (in milliseconds) Source Format (Rows) Destination Format(Columns) G723 GSM ULAW ALAW G726 ADPCM SLINR LPC10 G729A SPEEX ILBC G723 - - - - - - - - - - - GSM - - 2 2 3 2 1 - - - - ULAW - 4 - 1 3 2 1 - - - - ALAW - 4 1 - 3 2 1 - - - - G726 - 4 2 2 - 2 1 - - - - ADPCM - 4 2 2 3 - 1 - - - - SLINR - 3 1 1 2 1 - - - - - LPC10 - - - - - - - - - - - G729A - - - - - - - - - - - SPEEX - - - - - - - - - - - ILBC - - - - - - - - - - - flynn ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/m
Re: [Asterisk-Users] How "expensive" are the different codecs?(Regarding CPU time)
Jim Van Meggelen schrieb: Hmmm. I propose that we make your system the list guinea pig! If we can get that one tweaked, there's no telling what alse we can do with Asterisk! I'm not really sure that I completely get the meaning of this sentence. (Which can be because of the fact that its 06:47 AM or that I'm no native speaker or both ;-)) But I guess you meant that we could try to test everything that is known to work - including some voodo - and to see if it works? ;-) Have you tried running Asterisk at pseudo-realtime priority? (asterisk -p) That helps in one way: At the moment my system is doing its morning routine. That means it makes a tar archieve of my /home directory to my backup drive. With the -p option the "show translation"-values are equal to the values when my system is idle. I guess this option could help me a lot regarding the sound problems I got sometimes. Bye! Michael ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] How "expensive" are the different codecs?(Regarding CPU time)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Antony Stone schrieb: >> On Wednesday 15 December 2004 21:26, Michael Vogel wrote: >> >>> Is it a little bit too much for such a machine? What could be the >>> bottleneck? CPU? Memory? Interrupts? >> >> My advice would be to whack in a load more RAM - basically, try to >> get the poor little thing so it doesn't need to use swap. That will >> make a big difference to performance. > > I just doubled the memory, now I have 256mb and I am using - by now - > zero bytes for swap ;-) > > The values at "show translation" doesn't change. And they > change only a > little bit when I unload the "baycom_ser_hdx"-module that generates > three times more interrupts than the wcfxo-module. Hmmm. I propose that we make your system the list guinea pig! If we can get that one tweaked, there's no telling what alse we can do with Asterisk! Have you tried running Asterisk at pseudo-realtime priority? (asterisk -p) ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] How "expensive" are the different codecs? (Regarding CPU time)
Antony Stone schrieb: On Wednesday 15 December 2004 21:26, Michael Vogel wrote: Is it a little bit too much for such a machine? What could be the bottleneck? CPU? Memory? Interrupts? My advice would be to whack in a load more RAM - basically, try to get the poor little thing so it doesn't need to use swap. That will make a big difference to performance. I just doubled the memory, now I have 256mb and I am using - by now - zero bytes for swap ;-) The values at "show translation" doesn't change. And they change only a little bit when I unload the "baycom_ser_hdx"-module that generates three times more interrupts than the wcfxo-module. Bye! Michael ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] How "expensive" are the different codecs? (Regarding CPU time)
On Wednesday 15 December 2004 21:26, Michael Vogel wrote: > Jim Van Meggelen schrieb: > > YIKES! What kind of processor have you got there? > > Its a: > - Pentium II (Deschutes) 333MHz > - 128mb memory > > I'm using it as: > - Mailserver (IMAP, SMTP) > - Webserver (mainly for webmail) > - Newsserver > - Packet Radio station > - VNC server > - Proxy > ... > > 22:22:10 up 10 days, 1:49, 5 users, load average: 0.01, 0.09, 0.13 > 167 processes: 163 sleeping, 2 running, 2 zombie, 0 stopped > CPU states: 12.1% user, 7.4% system, 0.0% nice, 80.5% idle > Mem:126740K total, 124172K used, 2568K free, 4760K buffers > Swap: 345356K total, 173684K used, 171672K free,22992K cached > > Is it a little bit too much for such a machine? What could be the > bottleneck? CPU? Memory? Interrupts? My advice would be to whack in a load more RAM - basically, try to get the poor little thing so it doesn't need to use swap. That will make a big difference to performance. Regards, Antony. -- I know I always wanted to be somebody, but I guess I should have been more specific. Please reply to the list; please don't CC me. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] How "expensive" are the different codecs?(Regarding CPU time)
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Michael Vogel > Sent: December 15, 2004 10:26 AM > To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion > Subject: [Asterisk-Users] How "expensive" are the different > codecs?(Regarding CPU time) > > > Hi! > > The encoding, decoding and recoding cost cpu time, that's > sure. But does > this time differs much depending on the used codec? Absolutely. > > Is - for example - a G729 faster than a GSM codec? The Asterisk console command (at the CLI> prompt): show translation Will provide a matrix that gives an idea of the CPU penalty of each codec on your system. One of my lab systems returned this (sorry, I haven't licensed G.729 yet): (view with a fixed-width font such as courier) Translation times between formats (in milliseconds) Source Format (Rows) Destination Format(Columns) g723 gsm ulaw alaw g726 adpcm slin lpc10 g729 speex ilbc g723 - - - - - - - - - - - gsm - - 2 2 3 2 1 4 - - 18 ulaw - 3 - 1 3 2 1 4 - - 18 alaw - 3 1 - 3 2 1 4 - - 18 g726 - 4 3 3 - 3 2 5 - - 19 adpcm - 3 2 2 3 - 1 4 - - 18 slin - 2 1 1 2 1 - 3 - - 17 lpc10 - 4 3 3 4 3 2 - - - 19 g729 - - - - - - - - - - - speex - - - - - - - - - - - ilbc - 4 3 3 4 3 2 5 - - - The rule of thumb is generally this: the more bandwidth a codec uses, the less CPU it will require. So G.711 uses the most bandwidth, but almost no CPU. Conversely, a highly compressed codec will require the CPU to perform complex calculations on it; the better the compression, the more time it will take. Some codecs are better than others (GSM is pretty easy on the CPU relative to it's bandwidth). I'll paraphrase that old adage: - Low Bandwidth - Low CPU Use - Reasonable Audio Quality Pick any two. Keep in mind that the only time a codec will eat up CPU is if transcoding is required. If Asterisk does not need to convert between formats, then the load on the CPU will be essentially the same, regardless of the codec in use. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] How "expensive" are the different codecs? (Regarding CPU time)
el Flynn schrieb: hmm.. those numbers look a little... high... does it show the same values when your box is idle? My box _is_ idle at the moment ;-) mine gives the following, when there's no traffic going through: demo*CLI> show translation Translation times between formats (in milliseconds) Source Format (Rows) Destination Format(Columns) G723 GSM ULAW ALAW G726 ADPCM SLINR LPC10 G729A SPEEX ILBC G723 - - - - - - - - - - - GSM - - 2 2 3 2 1 - - - - ULAW - 4 - 1 3 2 1 - - - - ALAW - 4 1 - 3 2 1 - - - - G726 - 4 2 2 - 2 1 - - - - ADPCM - 4 2 2 3 - 1 - - - - SLINR - 3 1 1 2 1 - - - - - LPC10 - - - - - - - - - - - G729A - - - - - - - - - - - SPEEX - - - - - - - - - - - ILBC - - - - - - - - - - - Oooops ... Thats a "little" difference ;-) Bye! Michael ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] How "expensive" are the different codecs? (Regarding CPU time)
Michael Vogel wrote: Thanks! That helps me a lot. Am I right that this chart is calculated depending my machine's speed: yes, the numbers will vary depending on your system load. ### zhad*CLI> show translation Translation times between formats (in milliseconds) Source Format (Rows) Destination Format(Columns) G723 GSM ULAW ALAW G726 ADPCM SLINR LPC10 G729A SPEEX ILBC G723 - - - - - - - - - - - GSM - -131347151243 - 253 124 ULAW -41 - 136 4 132 - 242 113 ALAW -41 1 -36 4 132 - 242 113 G726 -824343 -454273 - 283 154 ADPCM -43 4 438 - 334 - 244 115 SLINR -40 1 135 3 -31 - 241 112 LPC10 -581919532118 - - 259 130 G729A - - - - - - - - - - - SPEEX -52131347151243 - - 124 ILBC -59202054221950 - 260 - zhad*CLI> ### Encoding to speex or ilbc seems to be too heavy for my machine ;-) hmm.. those numbers look a little... high... does it show the same values when your box is idle? mine gives the following, when there's no traffic going through: demo*CLI> show translation Translation times between formats (in milliseconds) Source Format (Rows) Destination Format(Columns) G723 GSM ULAW ALAW G726 ADPCM SLINR LPC10 G729A SPEEX ILBC G723 - - - - - - - - - - - GSM - - 2 2 3 2 1 - - - - ULAW - 4 - 1 3 2 1 - - - - ALAW - 4 1 - 3 2 1 - - - - G726 - 4 2 2 - 2 1 - - - - ADPCM - 4 2 2 3 - 1 - - - - SLINR - 3 1 1 2 1 - - - - - LPC10 - - - - - - - - - - - G729A - - - - - - - - - - - SPEEX - - - - - - - - - - - ILBC - - - - - - - - - - - flynn ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] How "expensive" are the different codecs? (Regarding CPU time)
Michael Vogel wrote: Hi! The encoding, decoding and recoding cost cpu time, that's sure. But does this time differs much depending on the used codec? Is - for example - a G729 faster than a GSM codec? Try 'show translations' in asterisk's CLI (GSM is much faster than G.729) ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] How "expensive" are the different codecs? (Regarding CPU time)
el Flynn schrieb: at the CLI, type "show translation" and it will show a chart of how long (in milliseconds) it will take to translate from one codec to another. Thanks! That helps me a lot. Am I right that this chart is calculated depending my machine's speed: ### zhad*CLI> show translation Translation times between formats (in milliseconds) Source Format (Rows) Destination Format(Columns) G723 GSM ULAW ALAW G726 ADPCM SLINR LPC10 G729A SPEEX ILBC G723 - - - - - - - - - - - GSM - -131347151243 - 253 124 ULAW -41 - 136 4 132 - 242 113 ALAW -41 1 -36 4 132 - 242 113 G726 -824343 -454273 - 283 154 ADPCM -43 4 438 - 334 - 244 115 SLINR -40 1 135 3 -31 - 241 112 LPC10 -581919532118 - - 259 130 G729A - - - - - - - - - - - SPEEX -52131347151243 - - 124 ILBC -59202054221950 - 260 - zhad*CLI> ### Encoding to speex or ilbc seems to be too heavy for my machine ;-) Thanks! Michael ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] How "expensive" are the different codecs? (Regarding CPU time)
Michael Vogel wrote: Hi! The encoding, decoding and recoding cost cpu time, that's sure. But does this time differs much depending on the used codec? Is - for example - a G729 faster than a GSM codec? at the CLI, type "show translation" and it will show a chart of how long (in milliseconds) it will take to translate from one codec to another. flynn ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] How "expensive" are the different codecs? (Regarding CPU time)
Michael Vogel wrote: Hi! The encoding, decoding and recoding cost cpu time, that's sure. But does this time differs much depending on the used codec? Is - for example - a G729 faster than a GSM codec? Bye! Michael They vary a lot. G.729 is pretty slow. iLBC and speex in the same ballpark. G.723.1 even slower. GSM 06.10 is reasonably fast. Encode usually takes a low longer than decode - maybe 3 to 6 times, depending in the codec. One encode + one decode of G.723.1 is nearly 20MIPs on a DSP chip. Multiply that by maybe 5 or 6 for MIPs on a Pentium. G.729 is maybe 11 DSP MIPs. Regards, Steve ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
