Hi Brian, > It just doesn't belong in user space or kernel space in the machine > for true performance you should do it in hardware... I'm pretty sure > the poor box would die if you tried it on 32 E1's at the same time.
Disagree somewhat. The challenge that echo cancellers further from the hardware face is having some idea of the size of the buffers between the canceller and the wire; provided that this is known, or is small in comparison to the canceller's tail length, it can, in principle, go anywhere. All other things being equal, the right place for a software EC is in user space: can be done in a cross-platform way, can use FPU/MMX/SSE without guilt and voodoo, etc. And there is no reason why the same algorithm would perform differently if implemented in "hardware" or on the host CPU. And the OP only needed four E1s.. --Dave > > /b > > On Nov 18, 2009, at 5:39 PM, David Knell wrote: > > > For the sort of box you're talking about (quad core++), this isn't > > lots; > > it's hardly any.. > > > > --Dave > > > _______________________________________________ > FreeSWITCH-users mailing list > FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org > 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 FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
