Matthew Rubenstein wrote:
I'm disappointed that Digium has not published exhaustive benchmarks on
capacity planning on different HW configs for different running setups.
I'm sorry you are disappointed, but do you realize both the complexity
of doing any sort of 'exhaustive' benchmarks,
to
function in the system?
On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 04:46 -0700,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 21:57:23 -0500
From: Andres [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] asterisk and multiple cpus/cores
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
2007 21:57:23 -0500
From: Andres [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] asterisk and multiple cpus/cores
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
asterisk-users@lists.digium.com
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format
gets less than 100% more power after its overhead to
function in the system?
On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 04:46 -0700,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 21:57:23 -0500
From: Andres [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] asterisk and multiple cpus/cores
I have found a site that list the following (no date in the post, so
it may be old):
since all transcoding and calls still go through one core in asterisk,
it doesn't make sense to buy a multi-core or hyperthreaded system that
will only slow you down
Does that still applies in asterisk
Erick Perez wrote:
I have found a site that list the following (no date in the post, so
it may be old):
since all transcoding and calls still go through one core in asterisk,
it doesn't make sense to buy a multi-core or hyperthreaded system that
will only slow you down
Does that still applies
