Not sure, but it seemed like people doing huge numbers of calls on a single machine are doing it pure IP with codec passthrough -- not to zap.
At what point did your system still have a bit of CPU free and cause no HDLC errors at all? -Michael -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris A. Icide Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 1:01 PM To: Asterisk Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Dev] rewriting asterisk as a state machine? - Not -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Was there ever a response to this as to what system design (I assume the poster was referring to asterisk since this is an asterisk mailing list) was capable of handling 5000 concurrent calls? And what did the caller mean by 5000 concurrent calls. Are these SIP to SIP, SIP to IAX, SIP to ZAP? I recently was able to run some tests on call density myself. I was using a Dual Processor Xeon 3.06GHz system with 4 4-port T1 cards installed (for a total of 16 t1 ports) I had two of these machines with cross-over cables connecting all 16 ports with each other. I then implemented a simple test in which I connected a call from one machine to the other across the T1 interface terminating to a Milliwatt on each end. Running a Linux 2.6.10 kernel, I was able to fill all 368 channels with echo canceling disabled. According to top, with all channels filled, the CPU was running at 99.9% for the asterisk process. I also tried the test with echo cancelling enabled, but upon hitting the 10th T1 of traffic, I got a flood of HDLC errors (cpu usage hit 99.9%) and calls were dropped. In the no echo cancel test, with all channels filled, I was getting sporadic HDLC errors. 5000 concurrent calls seems interesting. I suspect the method of achieving this is through an army of systems sharing load? - -Chris On 05:51 AM 3/4/2005, Brian West wrote: > >I would like to know too... since it was only possible to get about 185 >or so threads till very very recently. > >/b > >On Mar 4, 2005, at 9:14 AM, Andrew Kohlsmith wrote: > >> On March 4, 2005 09:52 am, Paul Mahler wrote: >>> We are getting over 5000 simultaneous calls with our PBX hardware >>> with less >>> than 50% CPU utilization, so I'm not sure this is much of a problem. >>> ;-) >> >> What hardware and what types (channels) of calls? I'm just curious, >> especially as to what you do for redundancy and failover. >> >> -A. >> _______________________________________________ >> Asterisk-Dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev >> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: >> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev > >_______________________________________________ >Asterisk-Dev mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev >To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.1 iQCVAwUBQiylAO0LTNca2q41AQGS0QQA2PFkDCVGDAQjVxXTKCKuiFTdSrptsCw8 QYu0mdMpkgz0U8Dn6PfaAA+S6PKNI7oy9dYVXuAdXogQuYljY/0GGI+OeNSu+Uvm zpWAyL1ObUtC7rQBh4cKvWUOCGv2rqDv96SfuxqailqgHaKxvPeLte71ziwZUdy2 ZjCvSddEKzw= =xKmD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
