[Freeswitch-users] freeswitch CPU usage

[Woody Dickson]

I just used normal g711.

This involve some code changes in the freeswitch core as well.  I need
to package it a bit better and get some more experiments done to fully
qualify it.
The problem with this kind of tests is  getting enough hardware to
generate this amount of calls is tricky.





On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:02 PM, David Ponzone <david.ponzone at ipeva.fr> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>