[Freeswitch-users] Performance bottleneck

[Michael Collins]

That begs the question... is there a mechanism in sqlite or Linux that
allows for the RAM drive to be backed up periodically?  That would be a
cool feature to get documented for those power users like Ken! ;)

 

-MC

 

________________________________

From: freeswitch-users-bounces at lists.freeswitch.org
[mailto:freeswitch-users-bounces at lists.freeswitch.org] On Behalf Of Ken
Rice
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:07 AM
To: freeswitch-users at lists.freeswitch.org
Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] Performance bottleneck

 

The Disk IO on sqlite can be quite a bit... One work around for this is
to create a ram drive of sufficient size and mount it to
/usr/local/freeswitch/db (or whatever your db dir is for freeswitch)
this helps out greatly... But anything in the db will not be saved
across system reboots unless you do something about that yourself

K



________________________________

From: Michael Jerris <mike at jerris.com>
Reply-To: <freeswitch-users at lists.freeswitch.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:59:13 -0400
To: <freeswitch-users at lists.freeswitch.org>
Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] Performance bottleneck

It's going to be the disk io from sqlite.  The presense states are all
stored in sqlite (or odbc) data source.

Mike

On Aug 12, 2008, at 1:53 PM, UV wrote:

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]
<mailto:freeswitch-users-bounces at lists.freeswitch.org%5d>  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 <http://192.168.1.1> <http://192.168.1.1>   -mi 192.168.1.1
<http://192.168.1.1> <http://192.168.1.1>   192.168.1.2
<http://192.168.1.2> <http://192.168.1.2>  

 

Results:

Test ran for 9.5 hours

Total of 48828 calls - all successful

No timeouts, retransmissions or unexpected messages.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freeswitch.org/pipermail/freeswitch-users/attachments/20080812/ac7e24f8/attachment-0002.html