Currently I apply bearerbox-sqlbox-smsbox and use mysql as my dlr engine. On Delll R710 Quadcore 2.2 Intel Xeon 16GB RAM it usually reduce to 5GB available memory in just 6 days and must be restarted to gain more memory. The server only used by Kannel. My daily traffics for that server is only 800 thousands MT/day.
sangprabv sangpr...@gmail.com http://www.petitiononline.com/froyo/ On Aug 10, 2010, at 10:53 PM, Alejandro Guerrieri wrote: > Are you completely _sure_ that it's held by Kannel and not the underlying OS? > Linux doesn't free unused memory unless needed by other processes. > > Also, if you have in-memory DLR's or a huge retry queue, it could consume > lots of memory. > > Unless you get OOM errors, I wouldn't be concerned by the amount of memory > being used. > > Regards, > > Alex > > On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 5:26 PM, sangprabv <sangpr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Regarding this performance benchmarking. I still got memory problem. Kannel > fails to release buffered or cached memory. Does anybody has tips to avoid > this problem? Thanks. > > > > sangprabv > sangpr...@gmail.com > http://www.petitiononline.com/froyo/ > > > On Aug 10, 2010, at 10:12 PM, Rene Kluwen wrote: > >> Why don’t you try it on your own system. Test with a MyIsam table and with >> InnoDB. >> It will be easy to determine which one works faster for you. >> >> == Rene >> >> From: users-boun...@kannel.org [mailto:users-boun...@kannel.org] On Behalf >> Of brett skinner >> >> Sent: Tuesday, 10 August, 2010 11:56 >> To: Alejandro Guerrieri >> Cc: Users >> Subject: Re: Kannel performance benchmarking >> >> Thanks for your feedback. >> >> Guess it is the age old tao of computer science. Space vs Time, always space >> vs time. :) >> >> Regards, >> >> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Alejandro Guerrieri >> <alejandro.guerri...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Oh yes, I read that blog quite frequently :) There's a lot of stuff to say >> about optimizing InnoDB, but it's definitely off-topic here and wouldn't fit >> on a single email of course. >> >> We've gone thru a series of optimization cycles on our platform and, with >> respect to Kannel, ended up using MyIsam for DLR's. We don't have any >> locking issues, the only detail is we need to be careful when expiring old >> entries to do it in small batches and not on peak hours. >> >> For the rest of our applications, except for small and mostly read-only >> tables, we use InnoDB and while seems "slower" when you do a couple of >> requests, it's a _lot_ faster if you are under heavy traffic because of the >> row locking instead of table locking. >> >> Anyway, there's no a one-size-fits-all solution and if you really need to >> sustain heavy traffic I'd recommend you do a lot of profiling and find the >> bottlenecks either on the DB and the rest of your platform. >> >> Regards, >> >> Alex >> >> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:15 AM, brett skinner <tatty.dishcl...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> Hi Alex >> >> That is why I have chosen Innodb for the tables we use for the application >> that surround Kannel. MyISAM definitely beat Innodb out the box but Innodb >> does seem to be better in terms of the issues you have pointed out. The >> other thing that I have read is that Innodb is incredibly slow with the >> stock standard configuration. I read through the following blog and followed >> their advice which increased its performance quite drastically. >> >> http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/11/01/innodb-performance-optimization-basics/ >> >> If you have a moment you can give that a read. Or if you have any other good >> references please send them a long. I am still rather new to MySql. Thanks :) >> >> Regards, >> >> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Alejandro Guerrieri >> <alejandro.guerri...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Well, if it weren't for the SELECT COUNT(*) slowness would be my preferred >> option here as well. Despite seeming "slower" at first (specially on small >> tables) InnoDB performs row-locking on index-based queries, which indeed >> improves things quite a bit on big tables with lots of simultaneous reads >> and writes. >> >> Regards, >> >> Alex >> >> 2010/8/10 Nikos Balkanas <nbalka...@gmail.com> >> Indeed. InnoDB is much slower overall compared to MyIsam. However, it has >> its use for some jobs (archive_logs, hot backups, etc.) >> >> The figures I gave were sustained rates simulated with a 10000-SMS batch. >> Count was sufficient to reach sustainability and reproducibility, yet short >> enough to get results fast. >> >> When i submitted fakesmpp, I also released similar data from a 64bit Solaris >> 10 server. >> >> BR, >> Nikos >> ----- Original Message ----- From: alejandro.guerri...@gmail.com >> To: brett skinner ; users-boun...@kannel.org ; us...@kannel. us...@kannel. >> Org >> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 11:21 AM >> >> Subject: Re: Kannel performance benchmarking >> >> >> Brett, >> >> The DLR engine uses SELECT COUNT(*) from the admin interface, which is >> painfully slow on InnoDB for moderately big tables. >> >> While InnoDB would theoretically be the best option, MyIsam performs quite >> better in this case. >> >> Regards, >> >> Alex >> BlackBerry de movistar, allν donde estιs estα tu oficin@ >> >> >> >> >> From: brett skinner <tatty.dishcl...@gmail.com> >> Sender: users-boun...@kannel.org >> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:13:54 +0200 >> To: Users<users@kannel.org> >> Subject: Re: Kannel performance benchmarking >> >> >> Hi Nikos >> >> >> Thanks for the extra information. What was the motivation for using MyISAM? >> My reading lead me to believe that MyISAM was not that well suited for >> interleaved reads and writes due to table locking which is why I opted to >> use InnoDB. From what I assumed about how Kannel worked is that >> reading/writing to the DLR table would be interleaved. I may be quite badly >> mistaken and might perhaps need to switch to MyISAM as a few others have >> recommended. >> >> >> In your opinion what should Kannel be able to handle sustained (assuming >> normal business hours)? And what should Kannel be able to burst to? I know >> some of these questions are a bit like how long is a piece of string but I >> really do value all and any of your feedback. >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> 2010/8/10 Nikos Balkanas <nbalka...@gmail.com> >> >> Try valgrind in linux. >> >> BR, >> Nikos >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "sangprabv" <sangpr...@gmail.com> >> To: "Nikos Balkanas" <nbalka...@gmail.com> >> Cc: "brett skinner" <tatty.dishcl...@gmail.com>; "kannel users" >> <users@kannel.org> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 3:35 AM >> >> Subject: Re: Kannel performance benchmarking >> >> >> Yeah I understand that. But when the there is no traffic. Kannel doesn't >> release the cached or buffered memory it used. Do you have any solution? >> What command to list down or trace the memory usage by Kannel? So maybe we >> can investigate which function or module in Kannel is eating the memory. >> Thanks >> >> >> >> >> sangprabv >> sangpr...@gmail.com >> http://www.petitiononline.com/froyo/ >> >> >> On Aug 9, 2010, at 11:19 PM, Nikos Balkanas wrote: >> >> >> No memory problems. It is reasonable that kannel will use more memory in >> higher traffic, since all queues are in memory, as long as it drops to >> nominal levels once the traffic is gone. >> >> BR, >> Nikos >> ----- Original Message ----- From: sangprabv >> To: brett skinner >> Cc: Nikos Balkanas ; kannel users >> Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 5:59 PM >> Subject: Re: Kannel performance benchmarking >> >> >> Hi Nikos, >> Do you experience memory problem? In my case Kannel is eating the memory on >> high load traffics. I always need to restart the box to get more memory. I >> even give 3 on /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches but still Kannel eat the memory :( >> >> >> >> >> >> >> sangprabv >> sangpr...@gmail.com >> http://www.petitiononline.com/froyo/ >> >> >> >> >> On Aug 9, 2010, at 9:42 PM, brett skinner wrote: >> >> >> Hi Nikos >> >> Out of curiosity can you go into more detail regarding what hardware you >> were running and your setup for MySql? Were you using Innodb or MyIsam. If >> you were using Innodb did you make any other configuration changes to MySql >> to accommodate Innodb. >> >> From the user guide it is implied that the bottle neck for Kannel is the >> number of messages that the SMSC can accommodate per second. Is this still >> the case? >> >> Regards, >> >> >> 2010/8/8 Nikos Balkanas <nbalka...@gmail.com> >> >> Hi, >> >> I have run some benchmarking for a client using fakesmpp. Using the default >> service for MO's I got: >> >> MO's: 1400 SMS/s >> MT + DLRs (internal): 747 SMS/s >> MT + DLRs (MySql): 434 SMS/s >> >> BR, >> Nikos >> ----- Original Message ----- From: ha...@aeon.pk >> To: kannel users >> Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 4:22 PM >> Subject: Kannel performance benchmarking >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> I am interested to know about the kannel performance benchmarking, >> especially in terms of speed (msgs/sec), MO or MT. I assume that multiple >> smsboxes does not have any effect over kannel performance, since the >> front-end talking to SMSC is the main bearerbox. What is the max speed that >> could be attained by kannel and/or bearerbox? >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> Hamza >> >> >> >> > >
