Given the choice between dual core and dual processor, would one work 
better than the other for FS?  Assuming roughly the same speed.  Or 
would it not really have a measurable difference assuming same speed and 
both Intel?

Anthony Minessale wrote:
> Which of the 2 machines has the load issue? You said it was one box 
> calling the other.
> 
> You have 2 major things against you, single CPU and AMD, but you should 
> at least be able to get in the vicinity of 800-1000 calls on a box like 
> that.
> 
> Are you calling the default 9999?  It's not really an appropriate 
> extension for load testing.
> On the terminating box you should set up a manual extension that is the 
> first one in the dial plan
> to play a wav file from preferably a ram disk or /tmp
> 
> If you do plan on using this in production accept nothing less than a 
> multi-core intel machine with at least 4 cores, the more cores the 
> better because that parallel processing is where FS gets it's atvantage.
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 5:56 AM, rod <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> 
>     Dear list,
> 
>     I've been playing with freeswitch for some time (2 months) and the fact
>     is that I'm very pleased with the functionnalities of this software.
> 
>     I'd like to use FS as a SBC handling media and I'm doing some tests with
>     sipp to load the machine but I'm unable to bridge more than 60 calls
>     without seeing the CPU being loaded at 100%. I'm sure something is going
>     wrong with my setup but I'm unable to see what.
> 
>     The test machine has the following specs:
>       Athlon XP 3500+ with 2GB of memory (I know this is not a high end
>     machine :p)
> 
>     Freeswitch:/opt/freeswitch/log# cat /proc/cpuinfo
>     processor       : 0
>     vendor_id       : AuthenticAMD
>     cpu family      : 15
>     model           : 95
>     model name      : AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3500+
>     stepping        : 2
>     cpu MHz         : 2199.973
>     cache size      : 512 KB
>     fpu             : yes
>     fpu_exception   : yes
>     cpuid level     : 1
>     wp              : yes
>     flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge
>     mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt
>     rdtscp lm 3dnowext 3dnow up rep_good pni cx16 lahf_lm svm extapic
>     cr8_legacy
>     bogomips        : 4402.97
>     TLB size        : 1024 4K pages
>     clflush size    : 64
>     cache_alignment : 64
>     address sizes   : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
>     power management: ts fid vid ttp tm stc
> 
>     I installed FS on a fresh debian 64:
>       Linux Freeswitch 2.6.26-1-amd64 #1 SMP Sat Jan 10 17:57:00 UTC 2009
>     x86_64 GNU/Linux
> 
>     I set the ulimit parameters like those on the website:
>       freeswi...@internal> ...
>     Freeswitch:/opt/free-svn/bin# ulimit -a
>     core file size          (blocks, -c) unlimited
>     data seg size           (kbytes, -d) unlimited
>     scheduling priority             (-e) 0
>     file size               (blocks, -f) unlimited
>     pending signals                 (-i) unlimited
>     max locked memory       (kbytes, -l) unlimited
>     max memory size         (kbytes, -m) unlimited
>     open files                      (-n) 999999
>     pipe size            (512 bytes, -p) 8
>     POSIX message queues     (bytes, -q) unlimited
>     real-time priority              (-r) 0
>     stack size              (kbytes, -s) 244
>     cpu time               (seconds, -t) unlimited
>     max user processes              (-u) unlimited
>     virtual memory          (kbytes, -v) unlimited
>     file locks                      (-x) unlimited
> 
> 
>     My network setup is the following:
> 
>       SIPP machine (10.10.10.1/24)----------------vlan
>     <http://10.10.10.1/24%29----------------vlan> 55
>     ----------(10.10.10.254/24 <http://10.10.10.254/24>) FS
>     (10.10.20.254/24)--------------
>     <http://10.10.20.254/24%29--------------> vlan56
>     -------------------(10.10.20.100/24 <http://10.10.20.100/24>) OTHER
>     STOCK FS
> 
> 
>     I launched sipp with:
>       sipp -sn uac_pcap -s 9999 -r 10 -l 80 -d 60000 -mi 10.10.10.1 -i
>     10.10.10.1 -mp 25000 10.10.10.254:5060 <http://10.10.10.254:5060>
> 
>     The dialplan on FS is very simple:
>     <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
>     <!-- http://wiki.freeswitch.org/wiki/Dialplan_XML -->
>     <include>
>      <context name="default">
> 
>        <extension name="hold_music_bridge">
>         <condition field="destination_number" expression="^9999$">
>           <action application="answer"/>
>           <action application="bridge"
>     data="sofia/external/[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>"/>
>           </condition>
>       </extension>
>       </context>
> 
>     </include>
> 
>     FreeSWITCH Version 1.0.trunk (11560M) Started.
>     Crash Protection [Disabled]
>     Max Sessions[1000]
>     Session Rate[100]
>     SQL [Enabled]
> 
> 
>     The test is very simple: sipp dial 9999 that matches in my FS dialplan
>     and this is bridged to an other FS machine playing music on hold.
>     When I launch "top"  I see after 30 to 40 s that FS consumes all the CPU
>     ressources (with a mean of 50-60 % before), with 80 calls.
>     When I set 70 calls, I have to wait 70-80 s before seeing the same
>     issue.
> 
>     Presence is set to false on the 2 profile.
> 
>     I have the same issue with FS 1.0.2 that' s why I tried FS 11560.
> 
>     When I use the FS machine as a router to test the packet per second
>     performance, I'm reaching 100Mbps with 8000pps in each direction (from
>     vlan 55 to vlan56) with less than 12% CPU. So that I don't think there's
>     an issue with the network.
> 
>     Here is an "mpstat -P ALL 1" to show you what's happening suddenly with
>     70 bridge calls:
>     12:31:26     CPU   %user   %nice    %sys %iowait    %irq   %soft
>     %steal   %idle    intr/s
>     12:31:27     all    3,00    0,00    3,00    0,00    1,00    4,00
>     0,00   89,00   6241,00
>     12:31:27       0    3,00    0,00    3,00    0,00    1,00    4,00
>     0,00   89,00   6241,00
> 
>     12:31:27     CPU   %user   %nice    %sys %iowait    %irq   %soft
>     %steal   %idle    intr/s
>     12:31:28     all   14,14    0,00   56,57    0,00    2,02    5,05
>     0,00   22,22   6035,35
>     12:31:28       0   14,14    0,00   56,57    0,00    2,02    5,05
>     0,00   22,22   6035,35
> 
>     12:31:28     CPU   %user   %nice    %sys %iowait    %irq   %soft
>     %steal   %idle    intr/s
>     12:31:29     all   24,75    0,00   67,33    0,00    0,99    6,93
>     0,00    0,00   5483,17
>     12:31:29       0   24,75    0,00   67,33    0,00    0,99    6,93
>     0,00    0,00   5483,17
> 
> 
>     The CPU is going from 89% idle to 0% in less than 2 seconds.
> 
>     I know that I don't have to expect too much from this kind of hardware,
>     but it seems strange that the CPU power vanished so suddenly.
> 
>     Thanks a lot for the guys that have read this long mail :p
> 
>     kind regards,
>     rod
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Freeswitch-users mailing list
>     [email protected]
>     <mailto:[email protected]>
>     http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
>     UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
>     http://www.freeswitch.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Anthony Minessale II
> 
> FreeSWITCH http://www.freeswitch.org/
> ClueCon http://www.cluecon.com/
> 
> AIM: anthm
> MSN:[email protected] 
> <mailto:msn%[email protected]>
> GTALK/JABBER/PAYPAL:[email protected] 
> <mailto:paypal%[email protected]>
> IRC: irc.freenode.net <http://irc.freenode.net> #freeswitch
> 
> FreeSWITCH Developer Conference
> sip:[email protected] 
> <mailto:sip%[email protected]>
> iax:[email protected]/888 
> <http://iax:[email protected]/888>
> googletalk:[email protected] 
> <mailto:googletalk%3aconf%[email protected]>
> pstn:213-799-1400
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Freeswitch-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
> UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
> http://www.freeswitch.org

_______________________________________________
Freeswitch-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
http://www.freeswitch.org

Reply via email to