2008/7/6 Grey Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > From what I can gather the suggestion from the FS approach is that > each Asterisk channel should be handled after by it's own unique > thread and save the need for any locking on the channel data > structures in the first place. >
After a quick grep, there are lots of mutex locks and unlocks in the FS code. As you would expect. I guess Steve Totaro's "grunt techs" know that, whilst Steve has drunk the koolaid (and is trolling, anyway). Nevertheless - the suggestion as I understand it is that there is less contention for locks in FS due to the design choice that one thread is created that handles one active channel. I guess the theory is that _everything_ done on that channel is done in that thread. By contrast, we have a mix of design styles like the worker threads, network threads etc. But we don't have evidence that contention for mutexes (aka locks) is slowing Asterisk down. So it there is a big performance different it will probably be elsewhere - like the linked lists that are already getting attention. My curiosity is piqued to do a proper comparison of Asterisk and Freeswitch with a realistic workload and compare results (and profile Asterisk if there is a big difference. Steve
_______________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- AstriCon 2008 - September 22 - 25 Phoenix, Arizona Register Now: http://www.astricon.net asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
