[Freeswitch-users] Freeswitch performance as a redirecting server
Tihomir Culjaga
tculjaga at gmail.com
Tue Aug 25 10:44:07 PDT 2009
Hi Giovanny,
thanks for your help,
everything that heavyly accesses the disk is on ramdisk now...
hopefully will get some real traffic pretty soon...
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Giovanni Maruzzelli <gmaruzz at celliax.org>wrote:
> is a heavely multithreaded software, it benefits from number of CPUs
> (or cores), RAM, and heavy duty kernel features (found in 64bit
> kernels)
>
> put all accesses on ramdisk, leave out the modules you don't use...
>
> experiment, test, and find the best for your specific application/workload
>
> test not only with sipp, but with real load too (often they're very
> different)
>
> -gm
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Tihomir Culjaga<tculjaga at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > thanks for the feedback... this is something im going to do tomorrow...
> >
> > what about other things?
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Jay Binks <jaybinks at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Everytime someone asks this , the resounding answer is use a 64bit os..
> >> No question
> >> Jay
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 25/08/2009, at 23:19, Tihomir Culjaga <tculjaga at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hey Giovanni,
> >>
> >> thanks for the tip... indeed the db files were heavily used regardless
> if
> >> i started freeswitch with nosql option (freeswitch -nosql)... FS was not
> >> writing anything into that files ... instead it was just accessing
> it....
> >> This behaviour leads to a waste of 40% CPU time... waiting for other
> >> processes (mainly disk access) to finish!!!
> >>
> >> I moved freeswitch/db/ to a ramdisk and the performance got a boost to
> 140
> >> CPS with a CPU load of 80%. I was keeping the machine for a while (20 -
> 30
> >> minutes) on that rate when i sow CPU suddenly went to 100% and FS
> becoming
> >> irresponsive :).
> >>
> >>
> >> What can be wrong?
> >> What are the limits in CPU usage (50%, 60%, 70%, 80%...) we should not
> >> cross?
> >> What fine tuning do we need in order to asure a long high load run?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Also, I'm running 32-bit OS (debian 5) on a 64 bit CPU... does it have
> >> sense to move my OS to 64 bit? ... will FS gain more preformance ?... I
> mean
> >> will FS perofomr drastically better 20%+ ?
> >>
> >>
> >> Tihomir.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Giovanni Maruzzelli
> >> <gmaruzz at celliax.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Maybe your load comes from disk access?
> >>>
> >>> Try putting the sql and log directories on a ramdisk.
> >>>
> >>> OTH,
> >>>
> >>> -giovanni
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Tihomir Culjaga<tculjaga at gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > Hello,
> >>> >
> >>> > i'm trying to use freeswitch as a redirecting server meaning FS has
> to
> >>> > receive an INVITE and according to some rules it will redirect calls
> to
> >>> > other destinations.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > CALLING_USER FREESWITCH
> SOMEWHERE
> >>> >
> >>> > INVITE ------------------------------->
> >>> > <------------------------------ 100 Trying
> >>> > <------------------------------ 302 Moved Temporary
> >>> > ACK ------------------------------->
> >>> >
> >>> >
> INVITE--------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Well, wverything works well except i have perfromance issues .... on
> my
> >>> > HW
> >>> > FS cannot do more than 40 CPS (INVITE answered by 302 Moved
> Temporary).
> >>> > When
> >>> > i increase the rate, FS starts delaying 302 response. Right at 50 CPS
> i
> >>> > see
> >>> > "calls" being build up in FS and the delay begining to grow.
> >>> >
> >>> > When i observe the machine, load average is almost nothing (load
> >>> > average:
> >>> > 1.41, 0.61, 0.60) CPU never goes to 100%, and i see only one thread
> >>> > taking
> >>> > most load... all others are just sitting there with 1-5 % CPU time.
> >>> > This looks to me as FS handles 302 messages in a single thread?!?!
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > tculjaga at FS:/usr/local/freeswitch/conf/dialplan$ top -H
> >>> >
> >>> > top - 10:41:37 up 167 days, 20:42, 3 users, load average: 1.41,
> 0.61,
> >>> > 0.60
> >>> > Tasks: 83 total, 2 running, 81 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
> >>> > Cpu(s): 25.3%us, 1.5%sy, 0.0%ni, 30.3%id, 42.7%wa, 0.0%hi,
> 0.2%si,
> >>> > 0.0%st
> >>> > Mem: 2074520k total, 571244k used, 1503276k free, 259604k
> >>> > buffers
> >>> > Swap: 2650684k total, 3020k used, 2647664k free, 153868k
> cached
> >>> >
> >>> > PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+
> >>> > COMMAND
> >>> > 4814 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 38 1.0 3:10.29
> >>> > freeswitch
> >>> > 4800 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 6 1.0 0:08.26
> >>> > freeswitch
> >>> > 4798 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 R 5 1.0 0:24.46
> >>> > freeswitch
> >>> > 4787 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 2 1.0 0:11.24
> >>> > freeswitch
> >>> > 4794 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:11.42
> >>> > freeswitch
> >>> > 4803 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:11.74
> >>> > freeswitch
> >>> > 4788 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:02.96
> >>> > freeswitch
> >>> > 4804 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:01.64
> >>> > freeswitch
> >>> > 4807 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:01.68
> >>> > freeswitch
> >>> > 4811 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:02.50
> freeswitch
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > cat /proc/cpuinfo
> >>> > processor : 0
> >>> > vendor_id : GenuineIntel
> >>> > cpu family : 6
> >>> > model : 15
> >>> > model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 5140 @ 2.33GHz
> >>> > stepping : 6
> >>> > cpu MHz : 2333.560
> >>> > cache size : 4096 KB
> >>> > physical id : 0
> >>> > siblings : 2
> >>> > core id : 0
> >>> > cpu cores : 2
> >>> > apicid : 0
> >>> > initial apicid : 0
> >>> > fdiv_bug : no
> >>> > hlt_bug : no
> >>> > f00f_bug : no
> >>> > coma_bug : no
> >>> > fpu : yes
> >>> > fpu_exception : yes
> >>> > cpuid level : 10
> >>> > wp : yes
> >>> > flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr
> pge
> >>> > mca
> >>> > cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe lm
> >>> > constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2
> ssse3
> >>> > cx16
> >>> > xtpr dca lahf_lm
> >>> > bogomips : 4670.78
> >>> > clflush size : 64
> >>> > power management:
> >>> >
> >>> > processor : 1
> >>> > vendor_id : GenuineIntel
> >>> > cpu family : 6
> >>> > model : 15
> >>> > model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 5140 @ 2.33GHz
> >>> > stepping : 6
> >>> > cpu MHz : 2333.560
> >>> > cache size : 4096 KB
> >>> > physical id : 0
> >>> > siblings : 2
> >>> > core id : 1
> >>> > cpu cores : 2
> >>> > apicid : 1
> >>> > initial apicid : 1
> >>> > fdiv_bug : no
> >>> > hlt_bug : no
> >>> > f00f_bug : no
> >>> > coma_bug : no
> >>> > fpu : yes
> >>> > fpu_exception : yes
> >>> > cpuid level : 10
> >>> > wp : yes
> >>> > flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr
> pge
> >>> > mca
> >>> > cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe lm
> >>> > constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2
> ssse3
> >>> > cx16
> >>> > xtpr dca lahf_lm
> >>> > bogomips : 4666.82
> >>> > clflush size : 64
> >>> > power management:
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > uname -a
> >>> > Linux l01sipindir1 2.6.26-1-686 #1 SMP Sat Jan 10 18:29:31 UTC 2009
> >>> > i686
> >>> > GNU/Linux
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Of course, i've tuned the machine up
> >>> >
> >>> > ulimit -c unlimited
> >>> > ulimit -d unlimited
> >>> > ulimit -f unlimited
> >>> > ulimit -i unlimited
> >>> > ulimit -n 999999
> >>> > ulimit -q unlimited
> >>> > ulimit -u unlimited
> >>> > ulimit -v unlimited
> >>> > ulimit -x unlimited
> >>> > ulimit -s 240
> >>> > ulimit -l unlimited
> >>> > ulimit -a
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Started FS with minimum modules but still 40 CPS seems to be the
> limit.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > So, is there any way to improve performance?
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Tihomir.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > _______________________________________________
> >>> > 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
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freeswitch.org/pipermail/freeswitch-users/attachments/20090825/7d37cded/attachment-0002.html
More information about the FreeSWITCH-users
mailing list