Re: [Freeswitch-users] Asterisk vs Freeswitch
Hi, for example here: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Greenfield/?p=214 We *replaced* a cluster of *10 Asterisk* servers with a *single FreeSwitch*server, said Chris Parker, director of systems for a large publicly traded CLEC. Parker says hes getting several hundred concurrent calls on a single, dual-core box thats also doing all of the media processing, a computationally intensive task. -- Best regards, Dmitry Kadantsev http://www.kadantsev.com - Home page (MS Silverlight required) http://www.doxwox.com - Best web meeting and online collaboration tool On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Ujjval Karihaloo ujj...@simplesignal.comwrote: Is there benchmark test results on how many simultaneous calls Freeswtich can do (with RTP anchored through it) vs the Asterisk. For any hardware/CPU/Mem that anyone may have performed this performance testing. Any numbers on average how much Freeswitch scores over the Asterisk in terms of capacity will help. ___ FreeSWITCH-users mailing list FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org ___ FreeSWITCH-users mailing list FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
Re: [Freeswitch-users] conference participant from behind NAT
ты все еще наблюдаешь эту проблему? я думал она уже решена... эни вей, я уже приехал и сделаю скоро воторой IP нам для собственного STUN-сервера. -- Best regards, Dmitry Kadantsev http://www.doxwox.com - Best web meeting and online collaboration tool. On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:32 AM, RobertT siniy...@gmail.com wrote: I am a bit confused with what's going on in a following scenario. I have a public FS server with a public conference, that clients are connecting to with my softphone. All of this softphones have STUN option enabled and working, effectively resolving client's public IP address. They also have ICE enabled (but I guess it's not relevant here, since FS doesn't do ICE). Also, media trafic is secured with SRTP. The problem is when one client connects from port-restricted NAT into a conference he can hear sound for some time and he can be heard by other participants, but after awhile sound is gone and neither he hear anything nor he can be heard. Where is the problem? Is it NAT, closing RTP port after some silence period from client? I tried to start conference with waste flag, but without success eventually. The very same person can be contacted through this FS with direct call (being established in proxy_media mode) without any problems, but this is where ICE stuff starts doing its' magic, I guess. Maybe I should try the same with SRTP disabled? Any help would be apreciated! Best regards, Robert. ___ FreeSWITCH-users mailing list FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org ___ FreeSWITCH-users mailing list FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
Re: [Freeswitch-users] mod_conference performance
Hi Brian, Robert has left to Germany. He will be again online on next Monday. -- Best regards, Dmitry Kadantsev On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Brian West br...@freeswitch.org wrote: also was this 260 people in a single conference or multiple smaller conferences? /b On Sep 17, 2009, at 1:58 PM, RobertT wrote: Okay, I've performed some additional tests and this is what I've found: * codec**max calls *speex (8kHz) 50 iLBC(8kHz) 50 PCMU(8kHz) 260(approx*) GSM(8kHz)150(approx*) speex(16kHz) 50 G722(16kHz) 90(approx*) * - couldn't trace till the total load of CPU 'cause RDP was timedout due to channel load. Calculated by trend. Still I think Linux tests are necessary. Cheers, Robert. ___ FreeSWITCH-users mailing list FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org ___ FreeSWITCH-users mailing list FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
[Freeswitch-users] FS performance under windows
Hi folk, First of all, thank you for FS - really strong project. I have already asked this once in other thread but didn't got any answer. So, I'll try to re-ask. We are playing currently with FS under Windows 2008 64bit. So far there are some issues but I hope we'll solve it in nearest future. After FS will be configured correctly we plan to play with performance things on FS. The question is: Does it makes any sense to try to setup FS under Win for a same performance level possible under Linux (e.g. CentOs)? Or it's just wasting of time? An additional question is: Are there any important and well know issues during migration from Win to Lin. Or it is just like copying of all configs into Linux installation? Thank you -- Best regards, Dmitry Kadantsev ___ FreeSWITCH-users mailing list FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
Re: [Freeswitch-users] FS performance under windows
Thank you! -- Best regards, Dmitry Kadantsev http://www.doxwox.com - Best web meeting and online collaboration tool. On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Muhammad Shahzad shaherya...@googlemail.com wrote: If you want to try FS on Windows only for feature testing etc. then its okay, however for production deployments (that includes load testing) i strongly recommend CentOS 5.x. As far as configuration migration is concerned, you don't need to change any configuration files, simply copy them to Linux installation. Thank you. On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Dmitry Kadantsev kadantse...@gmail.comwrote: Hi folk, First of all, thank you for FS - really strong project. I have already asked this once in other thread but didn't got any answer. So, I'll try to re-ask. We are playing currently with FS under Windows 2008 64bit. So far there are some issues but I hope we'll solve it in nearest future. After FS will be configured correctly we plan to play with performance things on FS. The question is: Does it makes any sense to try to setup FS under Win for a same performance level possible under Linux (e.g. CentOs)? Or it's just wasting of time? An additional question is: Are there any important and well know issues during migration from Win to Lin. Or it is just like copying of all configs into Linux installation? Thank you -- Best regards, Dmitry Kadantsev ___ FreeSWITCH-users mailing list FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org -- Muhammad Shahzad --- CISCO Rich Media Communication Specialist (CRMCS) CISCO Certified Network Associate (CCNA) Cell: +92 334 422 40 88 MSN: shari_78...@hotmail.com Email: shaherya...@googlemail.com ___ FreeSWITCH-users mailing list FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org ___ FreeSWITCH-users mailing list FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
Re: [Freeswitch-users] Freeswitch performance as a redirecting server
Hi all, is there same situation with FS for Windows? I mean 64bit is more preferable than 32bit, isn't it? Any performance test on Win 32/64 were done? -- Best regards, Dmitry Kadantsev On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Tihomir Culjaga tculj...@gmail.comwrote: intanto e il centos che si sta installando :) grazie. T. On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Giovanni Maruzzelli gmar...@celliax.org wrote: netbook remix joking! Server 64bit :-) -gm On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Tihomir Culjagatculj...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Giovanny, regarding ubuntu, did you mean 8.04 server or desktop ? On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Giovanni Maruzzelli gmar...@celliax.org wrote: Definitely go for 64 bit OS. If you want to be safe and sure, go for CentOS 5.2 64bit. Is the one used both for development and for heavy duty production. Also Ubuntu 8.04 is good. Other versions/distros are less used by the community. Adding RAM and CPUs helps to scale up. -gm Sincerely, Giovanni Maruzzelli Cell : +39-347-2665618 On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Tihomir Culjagatculj...@gmail.com wrote: Hey Giovanni, thanks for the tip... indeed the db files were heavily used regardless if i started freeswitch with nosql option (freeswitch -nosql)... FS was not writing anything into that files ... instead it was just accessing it This behaviour leads to a waste of 40% CPU time... waiting for other processes (mainly disk access) to finish!!! I moved freeswitch/db/ to a ramdisk and the performance got a boost to 140 CPS with a CPU load of 80%. I was keeping the machine for a while (20 - 30 minutes) on that rate when i sow CPU suddenly went to 100% and FS becoming irresponsive :). What can be wrong? What are the limits in CPU usage (50%, 60%, 70%, 80%...) we should not cross? What fine tuning do we need in order to asure a long high load run? Also, I'm running 32-bit OS (debian 5) on a 64 bit CPU... does it have sense to move my OS to 64 bit? ... will FS gain more preformance ?... I mean will FS perofomr drastically better 20%+ ? Tihomir. On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Giovanni Maruzzelli gmar...@celliax.org wrote: Maybe your load comes from disk access? Try putting the sql and log directories on a ramdisk. OTH, -giovanni On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Tihomir Culjaga tculj...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, i'm trying to use freeswitch as a redirecting server meaning FS has to receive an INVITE and according to some rules it will redirect calls to other destinations. CALLING_USERFREESWITCH SOMEWHERE INVITE --- -- 100 Trying -- 302 Moved Temporary ACK--- INVITE- Well, wverything works well except i have perfromance issues on my HW FS cannot do more than 40 CPS (INVITE answered by 302 Moved Temporary). When i increase the rate, FS starts delaying 302 response. Right at 50 CPS i see calls being build up in FS and the delay begining to grow. When i observe the machine, load average is almost nothing (load average: 1.41, 0.61, 0.60) CPU never goes to 100%, and i see only one thread taking most load... all others are just sitting there with 1-5 % CPU time. This looks to me as FS handles 302 messages in a single thread?!?! tculj...@fs:/usr/local/freeswitch/conf/dialplan$ top -H top - 10:41:37 up 167 days, 20:42, 3 users, load average: 1.41, 0.61, 0.60 Tasks: 83 total, 2 running, 81 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 25.3%us, 1.5%sy, 0.0%ni, 30.3%id, 42.7%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.2%si, 0.0%st Mem: 2074520k total, 571244k used, 1503276k free, 259604k buffers Swap: 2650684k total, 3020k used, 2647664k free, 153868k cached PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEMTIME+ COMMAND 4814 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 38 1.0 3:10.29 freeswitch 4800 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S6 1.0 0:08.26 freeswitch 4798 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 R5 1.0 0:24.46 freeswitch 4787 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S2 1.0 0:11.24 freeswitch 4794 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S1 1.0 0:11.42 freeswitch 4803 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S1 1.0 0:11.74 freeswitch 4788 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S1 1.0 0:02.96 freeswitch 4804 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S1 1.0 0:01.64 freeswitch 4807
