[Freeswitch-users] Freeswitch memory issue/question

[Anthony Minessale]

We have a policy against load testing issues on this mailing list.

What you are doing is most likely doing something wrong and we don't have
time to debug it for you.
We get way too many requests like this and there is a 99% result in proving
user error and improper load testing.

You can consider paid support from FreeSWITCH Solutions LLC for $175/hr per
consultant and an ongoing support contract for $10k/yr to deal with business
related bugfixing and support.

The free help we give here is based on a community shared resource pool and
we simply do not have enough to go around helping people with your type of
issue.  Please feel free to report bugs if you can pinpoint one using a more
realistic use case that does not involve DDosing your box with 10 million
invites.


On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 5:11 AM, Henry Huang <b_ball_henry at hotmail.com>wrote:

> Dear developers:
>
> Our product is close to sipping stage and we are doing stress tests on FS
> servers. We have now hit a dead end with our test results and running out of
> ideas. And the result is pointing to memory issues. We have ran our test on
> both FS 1.0.4 and 1.0.6 trunk with SIPP to do simply invite tests.
>
> Here is the test senario:
>
> Send 10,000,000 invites to our test server running FS 1.0.6 with fixed
> amount of invites per second. The xml dialplan simply bridge the call to an
> unknown/unregistered user like so (user/500001) and therefore FS would hang
> up once it doesn't find the user. When running the test, FS is steady, but
> the memory usage slowly piles up over time. The memory keeps adding up till
> it hit the ceiling, then FS crash. I don't understand what could be holding
> the memory and not releasing it since we are not doing anything special and
> the calls are not being answered. And I forgot to mention, through out the
> whole test, the CPU usage stays at about 35% .
>
> Please help
>
>
> Besides FS native test, we have created our own application module to run
> the same test. The app is written in C and basically what we did is to point
> the xml dialplan to the custom app. Inside our app , we are simply doing the
> same kind of test as the xml dialplan would do. The only thing we did for
> the stress test is the following code:
>
> switch_core_session_execute_application(session, "bridge", "user/500001");
>
> Like the xml dialplan test, we are bridging the call to a unregistered
> user, so the call would hang up right away if system doesn't find the user.
> But the bizarre thing is this - the memory usage is about 7 ~ 8 times as
> much as we are running only xml dialplan. This I don't understand. Our app
> is calling the native FS C function to bridge the call , why would it use
> more memory than the xml dialplan...
>
> your input would be very much appreciated.
>
> thanks
>
>
> --
> Henry Huang
> aka bbhenry
>
> VoIP & Open Source software Consultant
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/FreeSWITCH_wire

AIM: anthm
MSN:anthony_minessale at hotmail.com <MSN%3Aanthony_minessale at hotmail.com>
GTALK/JABBER/PAYPAL:anthony.minessale at gmail.com<PAYPAL%3Aanthony.minessale at gmail.com>
IRC: irc.freenode.net #freeswitch

FreeSWITCH Developer Conference
sip:888 at conference.freeswitch.org <sip%3A888 at conference.freeswitch.org>
googletalk:conf+888 at conference.freeswitch.org<googletalk%3Aconf%2B888 at conference.freeswitch.org>
pstn:+19193869900
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freeswitch.org/pipermail/freeswitch-users/attachments/20100414/5feb4eb1/attachment.html