[Freeswitch-users] Performance bottleneck

[UV]

Turning the presence off did the trick, although it would be important (to
me, at least) to understand why as it changes the performance significantly.

Is the presence mechanism waiting for some response from the network?

I’m assuming it’s waiting on something external because I couldn’t find any
CPU activity…

 

  _____  

From: freeswitch-users-bounces at lists.freeswitch.org
[mailto:freeswitch-users-bounces at lists.freeswitch.org] On Behalf Of Anthony
Minessale
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 12:55 AM
To: freeswitch-users at lists.freeswitch.org
Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] Performance bottleneck

 

9996 is not a good test extension because it does not generate any audio
unless it gets some.
9998 that generates a tone or make up an ext that plays a file is a better
one.

Processing of the sip calls can be delayed by the presence stuff which is
very intensive, you can try turning it off and see if you get more calls.
Also you should compare it to what happens with the test exten first in the
dial plan.




On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:58 AM, UV <uv at talknet.com.au> wrote:

I'm trying to determine the FS resource bottleneck when operating under load
(in windows environment), but can't get the FS to load for some unseen
reason.

 

FS environment (a weak PC on purpose):

CPU 2x Intel Pentium 4 3GHz 

RAM 2x 512MB DDR II RAM 

Chipset - Intel E7221 (Copper River) chipset ICH6R + FWH + BCM5721 

LAN 1x Broadcom Giga LAN 

Windows 2003 Server – Service pack 2

FS version 9235

Running Release build on highest priority

 

Load script:

A different machine running sipP

Running rtp_echo load, 50 cps, limit of 1000 calls, 30sec call duration,
extension 9996 (echo test):

sipp -rtp_echo -r 50 -l 1000 -d 30000 -s 9996 -sf auc.xml -mp 25000 -i
192.168.1.1 -mi 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.2

 

Results:

Test ran for 9.5 hours

Total of 48828 calls - all successful

No timeouts, retransmissions or unexpected messages.

Peak was 1003 calls after 4563 seconds (actual 0.2 cps)

Total of 1448750 RTP packets

Average response time: 11min 21 seconds

CPU usage 8% ~ 21%. Average 11%.

Memory usage:

Started with 26,000KB RAM, 27,660KB VM, 25 threads

Peak at 136,000KB RAM,,367,004KB VM, 1024 threads

Ended with 88,220KB RAM, 141,684KB VM, 24 threads

Disk usage wasn't monitored.

 

My question is what is slowing the response time so much but keeps the CPU
running low?

 

NB

Following Patrick Grondin's post from 17-Jul-08, I intentionally didn't
change the default dialplan as I'm trying to load up the CPU.


_______________________________________________
Freeswitch-users mailing list
Freeswitch-users at lists.freeswitch.org
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:anthony_minessale at hotmail.com
<mailto:MSN%3Aanthony_minessale at hotmail.com> 
GTALK/JABBER/PAYPAL:anthony.minessale at gmail.com
<mailto:PAYPAL%3Aanthony.minessale at gmail.com> 
IRC: irc.freenode.net #freeswitch

FreeSWITCH Developer Conference
sip:888 at conference.freeswitch.org
<mailto:sip%3A888 at conference.freeswitch.org> 
iax:guest at conference.freeswitch.org/888
googletalk:conf+888 at conference.freeswitch.org
<mailto:googletalk%3Aconf%2B888 at conference.freeswitch.org> 
pstn:213-799-1400

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.1/1605 - Release Date: 11/08/2008
16:59

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freeswitch.org/pipermail/freeswitch-users/attachments/20080813/a234321b/attachment-0002.html