Weiter Leiter wrote:
While trying to remain equidistant:
On 11/22/06, Klaus Darilion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jiri Kuthan wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> thank you for your speech. I do not wish to discourage you in your
enthusiasm,
> but at the same moment I prefer to rely on accurate measurements and
not
to
> spend time on undermining their results or relevance in a derogative
way. The data
> shows quite clearly the performance of the underlying "engine", the
stack,
> which is part of every server's doing and has *inherent* impact on the
overall
> performance and consequently scalability in whatever setup you have
(unless the
> setup relies on some underperforming techniques). That's what it is.
Yes - tm performance is fine, but from my practical experience external
applications (database lookups, DNS lookups ...) are the real
limitations. Maybe DNS lookups are not a bottleneck anymore in ser (due
to caching), but this also only works for already cached results.
You are right, but these bottle necks affect both projects. I wouldn't
count it as a discriminator. Or do you see improvements in either
project in
the way they access the DB at runtime? I know that OpenSER loads (only?)
faster.
Nothing that I am aware. But using openser instead of ser (0.9) I could
get rid of some external scipts and overall performance was better - but
as I said this was with old ser - Ottendorf probably also allows better
more flexible routing.
Maybe Ottendorf is better (faster, more flexible) than current openser -
but some months ago IMO openser was the only reasonable choice. But I
think Ottendorf wont be that fast/flexible when it is about adding new
features (applying patches ...)
Thus, when choosing a SIP proxy, there are more attributes which have to
be considered except performance.
regards
Klaus
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
