At 12:00 21/12/2006, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote: >Jiri Kuthan wrote: > >>if you happen to have a PCAP file with the incident, let me please know. >> >>-jiri >> >>p.s. even if you didn't tweak timers, the results may be suboptimal because >>the software version you are using is having rather indeterministic timer >>subsystem. >>For example, the recent measurements >>(http://www.iptel.org/ser/doc/performance) >>show quite scattered server responsiveness under high load. (Note though that >>the measurement results were achieved in a best-effort manner based on the >>tester knowledge and understanding of openser and that the result are not >>officially confirmed by the OpenSER project.) Whether it is indeed the cause >>is not certain though >>-- this looks really like a stealth bug. >> >> >it is not a bug - the timer's behaviour is quite difficult to predict on real >traffic platforms and experience showed that it has nothing to do with the >patterns observed during lab stress tests. Personally, I'm very keen when it >comes to finding bugs and as a matter of fact I did submitted a full bug >report for the timers in the latest SER stable version, couple of weeks ago. I >also checked and this bug was not present in non of the OpenSER versions.
Well -- I think the assessment language needs to be made more accurate. The bug which you reported is a bug and I thank you for the report. The problem I'm referring to though, is a major system inefficiency. The timer system in question is low-resolution, inaccurate, invariable and slow -- simply opposite of real-time. I personally believe that the results of the performance comparison are attributable to it (note that this is a guess though) but again, that's only one of more defficiences. -jiri -- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/ _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
