On 12/18/2009 03:29 AM, Brian wrote: > > Hi Mike, > > I didn’t get around to testing on the FreeSWITCH trunk yet. Are there > substantial fixes to mod_conference in the FreeSWITCH trunk that might > increase capacity for my scenario of one speaker and many listeners? > If I want to put this into a production environment, I would need a > stable version, which as far as I know is the 1.0.4 version. > > However, I did test on Asterisk 1.4 using app_conference, and doing > the same scenario was able to get 1 speaker and 600 listeners on a > single conference with no audio issues. The CPU at that point was just > over 300%, same as where the single conference scenario failed on > FreeSWITCH with 300 listeners. I was able to push it to over 700 > listeners before I reached 400% CPU usage (I guess maxing out my > quad-core processors), and asterisk finally crashed. But up until that > point, there were no audio problems. > > I’ve read a lot about how FreeSWITCH is supposed to be more scalable > than Asterisk, but unless there is something wrong with my FreeSWITCH > setup, Asterisk was clearly the winner in this test – more than > doubling FreeSWITCH capacity in this case. Again, maybe there is > something on the FreeSWITCH side that I’m doing wrong, but I don’t see > what it could be. > > Brian. >
I don't think you have mentioned which codecs are involved. This can have a profound effect. Steve > *From:* Michael Jerris [mailto:m...@jerris.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, December 17, 2009 10:18 AM > *To:* freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org > *Subject:* Re: [Freeswitch-users] mod_conference scalability > > I would be curious what the same tests produce with svn trunk of > FreeSWITCH. > > Mike > > On Dec 16, 2009, at 4:49 PM, Brian wrote: > > > > Hi, > > I’m new to FreeSWITCH and I’m testing the scalability of > mod_conference to see if it will scale better that other solutions. My > scenario is to have one speaker, and many listeners (mute). Since I > have only one speaker, I was expecting this to scale well because > there is no audio mixing required, just send each frame of the single > speaker to each listener. Unfortunately, my testing was disappointing, > and it didn’t scale nearly as well as I’d hoped (based on what I’ve > read on how FreeSWITCH is supposed to be generally very scalable). > > Here’s my server setup is this: > > FreeSWITCH 1.0.4, 64 bit CentOS 5.3, on a quad-core Xeon server, 4 Gig > of RAM. I’ve set file logging to “notice” level. My conference profile > is configured to suppress several events, hoping that it would improve > performance. > > Here are a few scenarios I tested, and roughly where I reached the > point of audio failure on the conferences: > > Scenario 1: > > 1 conference, 1 speaker, audio failed at approx 300 listeners (mute) > > Scenario 2: > > 4 conferences, 1 speaker per conference, audio failed approx 110 > listeners per conference (so just over 400 total channels on the system). > > Scenario 3: > > 16 conferences, 1 speaker per conference, audio failed at 32 listeners > per conference (so just over 500 total channels on the system). > > Looking at the output from “top”, it seems that in all 3 scenarios, > the audio quality failed when the % CPU for the FreeSWITCH process > exceeded 300%. > > I was hoping maybe someone else might have done similar testing, or > maybe has suggestions on how to improve the performance. Or perhaps an > alternate solution to the one speaker, many listener case? > > Thanks, > > Brian. > > _______________________________________________ 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
