[Freeswitch-users] RTP delay > 100ms by performance testing with freeswitch as trancoding device SILK to G711a

[A E G]

On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Stanislav Sinyagin <ssinyagin at yahoo.com>wrote:

> OpenVZ and XEN VPS'es are usually fine for quick prototyping and feature
> tests.
> Also they would be fine for private PBXes with low call volumes.
> For hundreds of simultaneous calls, it's probably cheaper to rent
> dedicated hardware servers.
> On the other side, if you have some smart load balancing, probably you can
> build a scalable design with VPS'es and eventually migrate to physical
> servers when volumes  are high enough.
>
> also for a calling card business, probably the most critical CPU resource
> would be needed for the IVR and real-time billing, but not for the calls
> themselves.
>
>
Thanks Anthony and Stanislav.

I think I have enough warning along with some encouraging words to build a
strategy.

Thanks again., Now the search for the right IaaS provider begins.




>
>
>
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* A E G <all.eforums at gmail.com>
> *To:* FreeSWITCH Users Help <freeswitch-users at lists.freeswitch.org>
> *Sent:* Saturday, July 7, 2012 12:23 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Freeswitch-users] RTP delay > 100ms by performance
> testing with freeswitch as trancoding device SILK to G711a
>
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Anthony Minessale <
> anthony.minessale at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I would be insane to endorse using it in a virtual world.  The support
> expectations would consume the rest of my life.
> I try to make the code work well on real boxes and if it works on
> virtual ones then that's a bonus =D
>
> We have good luck with openVZ since its a single real kernel and
> virtual runtimes but either way we do not recommend it so its a use at
> your own risk kind of thing.
>
>
> Yup agree and acknowledge that you wouldn't endorse or offer to support
> it, and nor should you. Simply trying to pick your (and anyone else who
> wants to chime in) brain on the topic. Totally PoC'ing it at my own risk :)
>
> So, in that spirit, just one last message about it. Just like sharing the
> experience with OpenVZ, let's just say that I am insane and I still want to
> try it in a private cloud. Would you say the resource consumption of FS
> (assuming it's just receiving the call, having it routed by a custom
> routing engine via ESL, and switching it) be more than that in the "real"
> world for the same call volume barring any clock sync/skew/jitter issues?
> Would something like Cloudstack on hardware (like the one you recommended
> earlier) with a FS VM with 12 vcpu cores, 24GB RAM and DAS be able to
> handle something like 300-400 concurrent calls or am I out of my mind?
>
> Thx
>
>
>
>  On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 3:59 PM, A E G <all.eforums at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yup got that, and are you saying the same is applicable and true even if
> one
> > was to try and run FreeSWITCH on a private cloud or in a virtual
> > environment? assuming of course that those tips would then apply to the
> > machine on which the Hypervisor will run.
> >
> > Just trying to get a handle on whether running FreeSWITCH to do something
> > like wholesale or calling card traffic in a purely virtual environment
> is /
> > has proven to work. You probably know the most in terms of all different
> > environments people are running FS in, and if you (or they) have pointers
> > specific to it being run in a virtual environment.
> >
> > Thanks so much
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Anthony Minessale
> > <anthony.minessale at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Like I said "Really Really Nice Motherboard", as many CPU as
> >> possible/affordable, and a good chunk of RAM.
> >> Motherboard is the most important, a cheap motherboard with a ton of
> >> cores is a waste.
> >>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freeswitch.org/pipermail/freeswitch-users/attachments/20120706/8ad75a3e/attachment-0001.html