[Freeswitch-users] freeswitch CPU usage

[Vincent Stemen]

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 07:19:43PM +0300, Vlasis Hatzistavrou wrote:
>   On 20/8/2010 5:52 ??, Anthony Minessale wrote:
> > Yet another load test thread.........................
> >
> > This is why we don't like them.
> >
> >
> > Too bad you missed my presentation at cluecon.....
> >
> > Do you hear yourself btw? Quibbling about completely free software
> > *only* doing 200cps in your fake test?
> I don't know if I missed any message in this thread, but why do you say 
> that the tester did a fake test?
> 
> > 200cps is 4 times the industry standard FYI and if you were really
> > doing 200cps in real life you would be so rich at our expense that you
> > could afford more boxes.
> >
> > you clearly ignored all of our repeated recommendations.
> > Use the following or you are on your own.......
> >
> > This OS
> > Centos 5.x x86_64
> 
> If someone is on his own for any other OS than Centos 5.x x86_64 then 
> why is FS offered for so many different platforms?
> 
> It's only natural for people to want to test it on their favorite 
> platform... Perhaps, as you recommend, Centos 5.x x86_64 gives the best 
> results over all other platforms, but last time I checked, a user is 
> still allowed to ask performance related questions for his favorite 
> platform in this mailing list, right?

I agree.  Woody Dickson said

    What I found so strange was that while CPU usage remains pretty low
    and distributed among all cores at 190 - 200 calls per second.
    Then, after added a few more calls per second, all CPU becomes fully
    utilized.

I did not interpret his comments as having anything to do with
criticizing or questioning the performance of freeswitch.  His question
was one of curiosity about the extreme non-linearity of the processor
load suddenly surging by adding just a few calls.  If I had seen this
same behaviour I likely would have asked the same question.

Just my two cents worth.
Vince


> Woody's post was not expressing any negative opinion about FS's 
> performance. He didn't comment on whether 200cps was too little or too 
> much. He just wrote that the CPU usage increased in an unexpected manner 
> and wonders how/if he can solve this. He wrote that he was doing a load 
> test scenario, he didn't write that he was making money at 200cps "at 
> your expense". And he wrote all this in a manner which was neither 
> insulting nor abusive.
> 
> The poster just wanted to learn something, see if others have gotten 
> better results with other setups. He was trying to make a valid 
> discussion to solve a problem, and other users were actually replying to 
> him.
> 
> This is what mailing lists are for, right?
> 
> I really don't understand why red flags have to be raised every time the 
> word "performance" is mentioned in this mailing list.
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Vlasis Hatzistavrou.