In article <[email protected]>, Kevin P. Fleming <[email protected]> wrote: > On 09/30/2011 07:49 AM, Administrator TOOTAI wrote: > > Le 30/09/2011 14:05, Kevin P. Fleming a écrit : > >> On 09/30/2011 03:56 AM, Administrator TOOTAI wrote: > >>> Hi list, > >>> > >>> we have 2 asterisk boxes in VM (kvm) on 2 different Dell servers, one is > >>> Lenny kernel 2.6.26 asterisk 1.6.2.20, the second CentOS 2.6.18 asterisk > >>> 1.4.36 (Elastix). Both 64bits, no hardware involved, dahdi on both > >>> machines for meetme timing. > >>> > >>> Doing core show translation give on the Lenny server > >>> > >>> Translation times between formats (in microseconds) for one second of > >>> data > >>> Source Format (Rows) Destination Format (Columns) > >>> > >>> g723 gsm ulaw alaw g726aal2 adpcm slin lpc10 g729 speex ilbc g726 g722 > >>> siren7 siren14 slin16 > >>> g723 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > >>> gsm - - 2 2 4001 2 1 2 - - - 4001 4002 - - 4003 > >>> ulaw - 4001 - 1 4001 2 1 2 - - - 4001 4002 - - 4003 > >>> alaw - 4001 1 - 4001 2 1 2 - - - 4001 4002 - - 4003 > >>> [...] > >>> > >>> and on the CentOS one > >>> > >>> g723 gsm ulaw alaw g726aal2 adpcm slin lpc10 g729 speex ilbc g726 g722 > >>> g723 - - - - - - - - - - - - - > >>> gsm - - 2 2 2 2 1 3 - 6 - 2 2 > >>> ulaw - 2 - 1 2 2 1 3 - 6 - 2 2 > >>> alaw - 2 1 - 2 2 1 3 - 6 - 2 2 > >>> [...] > >>> > >>> Why do we have such latency on the Lenny machine for the codec > >>> translation? Is this due to a kernel parameter? > >> > >> Because you didn't read the output. It clearly says "(in > >> microseconds)" in the 1.6.x output. > >> > > > > Well, I surely ask the wrong way, sorry: ms or us, 4001 from ulaw to gsm > > and 2 the other way, still a huge difference. The output from centos > > shows similar value in both directions. > > This is why the output was changed to microseconds from milliseconds; in > the older version, the lowest number that should be shown was 1 > millisecond, even if the actual amount of time consumed was 10 > microseconds (or less). The "1" numbers in the output from the older > could easily have been "0.02", which would be closer to the output from > the new version.
Maybe, but that still doesn't explain why there is a factor of 2000 between some conversions and others. And 4001, 4002 and 4003 are remarkably like a big round number plus a tiny offset! I would agree with the OP that the values shown look suspicious and would bear some investigating... Cheers Tony -- Tony Mountifield Work: [email protected] - http://www.softins.co.uk Play: [email protected] - http://tony.mountifield.org
-- _____________________________________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs: http://www.asterisk.org/hello asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
