[Freeswitch-users] freeswitch CPU usage

[David Ponzone]

Woody,

what codec do you use to push 70kpps on 1 GigE card ?

David Ponzone  Direction Technique
email: david.ponzone at ipeva.fr
tel:      01 74 03 18 97
gsm:   06 66 98 76 34

Service Client IPeva
tel:      0811 46 26 26
www.ipeva.fr  -   www.ipeva-studio.com

Ce message et toutes les pièces jointes sont confidentiels et établis  
à l'intention exclusive de ses destinataires. Toute utilisation ou  
diffusion non autorisée est interdite. Tout message électronique est  
susceptible d'altération. IPeva décline toute responsabilité au titre  
de ce message s'il a été altéré, déformé ou falsifié. Si vous n'êtes  
pas destinataire de ce message, merci de le détruire immédiatement et  
d'avertir l'expéditeur.




Le 23/08/2010 à 15:44, Woody Dickson a écrit :

> Based on my experiment, that is still the case with CentOS.  After
> using my own UDP, I was able to get 70K pps on 1 ethernet card on a
> Intel 5550.  The limitation is that I don't have enough machine power
> to fire off enough calls to max it out.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Nyamul Hassan <mnhassan at usa.net>  
> wrote:
>> Is this also the case for the recommended CentOS / RHEL?  Do you  
>> still have
>> to resort to having your own UDP implementation to max out Eth Card
>> limitation?
>> In the past, I have found a limitation on Linux, that the eth  
>> driver is
>> single-threaded.  So, I couldn't push beyond 50K pps on a Intel  
>> Quad E5504
>> HP machine through 1 ethernet card.
>> Regards
>> HASSAN
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:34, Woody Dickson  
>> <woodydickson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Vince,
>>>
>>> I have played with running Freeswitch on BSD too but the result is  
>>> not
>>> great.  The reason seems to be because BSD's threading is not as
>>> efficient as the one in Linux or there may be some other ways to  
>>> tune
>>> it.  BSD does give a better pure UDP throughput performance by the
>>> way.
>>>
>>> So what I ended up doing is developing my own UDP implementation  
>>> which
>>> enable media to move through the ethernet at raw wire speed.  I am
>>> able to max out the ethernet card limitation on Linux platform as a
>>> result of that.
>>>
>>> Woody
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 1:53 AM, Vincent Stemen
>>> <vince.freeswitch at hightek.org> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 05:29:31PM +0800, Woody Dickson wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am doing some experiments with Freeswitch by torturing it to  
>>>>> see how
>>>>> the machine's CPU response to heavy loaded situation.
>>>>> The test is done on a 16 core 5550 dual quad core server running
>>>>> fedora 2.6.30.10-105.2.23.fc11.x86_64 OS.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this due to some wrong setting?  Any idea how I can tweak the
>>>>> configuration and continue my test?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Woody
>>>>
>>>> Hi Woody.
>>>>
>>>> I would hazard to guess that this could be a Linux resource  
>>>> management
>>>> issue.  I don't have any experience with SMP on Linux, but Linux  
>>>> has
>>>> a long history of memory management (among other) problems.  We ran
>>>> Linux exclusively on all our servers and workstations for over 10  
>>>> years
>>>> before finally switching to BSD several years ago.  We had  
>>>> continuous
>>>> problems ranging from minor strange unexplained behaviours, as you
>>>> describe, to what appeared to be bugs in applications, to outright
>>>> crashes and freezes of the whole OS every day.  When we switched  
>>>> to BSD
>>>> nearly all the problems went away.  Even some of the (what  
>>>> appeared to
>>>> be) bugs in Linux binary applications went way, going from Linux  
>>>> to BSD
>>>> running under Linux emulation (without re-compiling), using the  
>>>> same
>>>> Linux libraries on the same hardware.
>>>>
>>>> An interesting test would be to try the same load test with BSD  
>>>> on the
>>>> same machine and see if you get a similar result.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Vince
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/20100823/54b69b2d/attachment-0001.html