> Ultimately a standard test suite like the one so helpfully
> published in this thread would benchmark the baseline config, then the
transcoding
> config, as this one did. But for each of the combinations of the
> various codecs. Then a benchmark adding each of various options, like
> confer
On 11/17/07, Matthew Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ultimately a standard test suite like the one so helpfully
> published in
> this thread would benchmark the baseline config, then the transcoding
> config, as this one did. But for each of the combinations of the various
> codec
On 11/17/07, Talking Voice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Have you seen the stats on rtpproxy http://www.rtpproxy.org it seems
> to be far more impressive than those of Asterisk B2BUA.
it also does less work. It does not relay media, and those numbers arent
impressive when you consider there ar
Ultimately a standard test suite like the one so helpfully published in
this thread would benchmark the baseline config, then the transcoding
config, as this one did. But for each of the combinations of the various
codecs. Then a benchmark adding each of various options, like
conferencing,
> Asterisk was running on a server with two Xeon 5140, dual core, 2.33 GHz
> CPUs and 4 GB of RAM.
> We found that an Asterisk B2BUA on this hardware can manage 1500
> simultaneous calls with no transcoding and 400 simultaneous calls with G.711
> to G.729 transcoding.
Many thanks for the testing d
Here are the tests I would like to see.
10-30cps, variable aloc (1ms lowest/10ms max)
The issue is if Asterisk is public facing it takes a burst of 10-15
calls at once can cause issues. So Asterisk MUST survive these kinds
of things even if you don't feel they are real world examples.
To re
Have you seen the stats on rtpproxy http://www.rtpproxy.org it seems
to be far more impressive than those of Asterisk B2BUA.
On Nov 16, 2007 3:02 PM, Jim Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We recently performed an indepth performance test on Asterisk V1.4.11
> configured as a SIP B2BUA.
>
> Ast
On 11/17/07, Zoa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Yes, but
> 1500 calls
> 3000 call streams
> 50 pps per call stream
> thats 150.000 pps + signalling, we need double the packets per second on
> that machine to have that amount of calls. (sure the test is not 1500
> call legs?)
The reported ban
Yes, but
1500 calls
3000 call streams
50 pps per call stream
thats 150.000 pps + signalling, we need double the packets per second on
that machine to have that amount of calls. (sure the test is not 1500
call legs?)
Yes, linux can do that in the kernel on that machine, the intel e1000
networ
Well done. I posted the news to AstPligg as well:
http://tinyurl.com/yntzhy
Thanks
l.
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:02:07 +0100, Jim Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> We recently performed an indepth performance test on Asterisk V1.4.11
> configured as a SIP B2BUA.
>
> Asterisk was running on a
Zoa wrote:
> It is not because they cannot test more than 5000 simultaneous calls in
> their lab, that by using openser they can't scale more.
> openser is known to handle more than people can throw at it (especially
> if you dont care about the packets per second and run it stateless, it
> will
11 matches
Mail list logo
