Brian West wrote: > > On Jun 4, 2009, at 9:32 AM, Apostolos Pantsiopoulos wrote: > >> NOTE No 1 : All the performance recommendations found in the wiki has >> been applied. In fact only the essential modules that could make this >> scenario work >> were loaded. > > What are you testing against? What OS, Hardware, Distro and such?
The small server tests were made on a 5-year old PC (32 bit, 3 Ghz P4, Cetnos 5.3). The large server 1 : Quad-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2350 HE (64 bit, Centos 5.3) The large server 2 : Dual-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2214 HE (64 bit, Centos 5.3) The large server 3 : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5345 @ 2.33GHz (32 bit, Centos 5.3) > >> NOTE No 2 : I tried using asterisk (as a point of reference - don't get >> me wrong - I am not trying to start a flame war here). And it succeeded >> doing on the same hardware 60 calls/sec with a channel limit of 400 >> sim. calls using only 50% of the cpu (maximum). No under any >> circumstances I have seen the behavior above (this inability to hang >> call legs in a timely manner). Even when I pushed asterisk to the limits >> (80 calls per second 600 max call limit) and it started failing on some >> calls it never failed to hangup the calls for both legs on exactly 10 >> secs. > > Load testing is a science and you can do it wrong most of the time > unless you know exactly what you're doing. If you're going against the > default dialplan its heavy and not something I would load test against. The dialplan : <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <!-- http://wiki.freeswitch.org/wiki/Dialplan_XML --> <include> <context name="mydialplan"> <extension name="dial1"> <condition field="destination_number" expression="^.*$"> <!-- Dial Back --> <action application="set" data="absolute_codec_string=PCMA"/> <action application="bridge" data="sofia/gateway/sipp01/$1"/> </condition> </extension> </context> </include> I think it is the simplest that can be used in this scenario. > > >> NOTE No 3 : As you can tell I was using a very small machine for my >> tests. When I moved the same tests to larger installations (Quad Core >> Opterons and Xeons) I got proportional results to the above. > > What are you testing on now? Hope its 64bit. Most of the platforms were 64 bit (although the results that I posted were from the small 32-bit server, the results from the 64-bit servers were proportional to those). In other words we needed a large call/sec rate for the high end servers but in any case the same phenomenon occured at around 60% idle cpu. -- ------------------------------------------- Apostolos Pantsiopoulos Kinetix Tele.com R & D email: [email protected] ------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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
