[Freeswitch-users] Performance Testing

[Hanie Maghsoudy]

That was really informative. Thanks alot.

On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Peter Olsson <
peter.olsson at visionutveckling.se> wrote:

> The common answer is "it depends"..
>
> It depends on many different aspects, for instance: transcoding, script
> handling, media bypass etc. So there is no answer that is valid for
> everyone. There are also easy changes that can be made to improve
> performance, putting the sqlite databases on a RAM-drive is one common task.
>
> Also make sure to have as many CPU cores as possible, lots of RAM, and med
> sure to use 64-bit systems.
>
> I've never done any testing myself, so I don't know really. But I know
> there are people out there handling thousands of concurrent calls, at
> pretty high CPS.
>
> One more thing though, that will help you out right now. FS doesn't behave
> 100% correctly in CentOS 6.x, CentOS 6.x causes much higher CPU load,
> compared to CentOX 5.x. So right now CentOS 6.x is not officially supported
> by FS (until the reasons for this has been discovered). If you switch to
> real hardware and use CentOS 5.x I'm pretty sure that will give you much
> better results.
>
> These issues on Jira are related to CentOS 6.x problems.
>
> FS-4396<http://jira.freeswitch.org/browse/FS-4396>
> FS-4316<http://jira.freeswitch.org/browse/FS-4316>
>
> /Peter
>
> ________________________________
> Från: freeswitch-users-bounces at lists.freeswitch.org [
> freeswitch-users-bounces at lists.freeswitch.org] för Hanie Maghsoudy [
> h.maghsoudy at gmail.com]
> Skickat: den 7 juli 2012 11:18
> Till: FreeSWITCH Users Help
> Ämne: Re: [Freeswitch-users] Performance Testing
>
> Thanks Peter, I will definitely test with a real server too. But, first of
> all, I'm really interested to know that what the result looks like for the
> others (perhaps with real servers in real environment).
>
> On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Peter Olsson <
> peter.olsson at visionutveckling.se<mailto:peter.olsson at visionutveckling.se>>
> wrote:
> Before trying anything else, use real hardware instead of virtual. A
> virtual server with this kind of load will only cause you trouble. Actually
> - most virtual solutions will cause you problems :)
>
> Also, performance with average call duration of 4s is not really anything
> that would happen in real life.
>
> But first of all - get real hardware.
>
> /Peter
>
> ________________________________
> Från: freeswitch-users-bounces at lists.freeswitch.org<mailto:
> freeswitch-users-bounces at lists.freeswitch.org> [
> freeswitch-users-bounces at lists.freeswitch.org<mailto:
> freeswitch-users-bounces at lists.freeswitch.org>] för Hanie Maghsoudy [
> h.maghsoudy at gmail.com<mailto:h.maghsoudy at gmail.com>]
> Skickat: den 7 juli 2012 09:46
> Till: FreeSWITCH Users Help
> Ämne: [Freeswitch-users] Performance Testing
>
> Hi all,
>
> I searched for FreeSwitch call capacity, but most of the results wasn't
> new. So, I wanna ask if anybody has either tested FreeSwitch's performance
> recently, or got a dramatic result in real environment?
>
> I tested call quality on this machine:
>
> Virtual FreeSwitch server
> OS: CentOS release 6.2 - x86_64
> CPU: 8 processor - Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5670  @ 2.93GHz
> Memory: 8 G
>
> After receiving incoming calls, FreeSwitch routed them to another sip
> server, without transcoding. The other server transmitted calls by playing
> an audio file.  Meanwhile, I called an extension in FreeSwitch to test the
> call quality.
>
> The result was like this:
>
> 1000 Concurrent calls
> Call duration: 160s
> Call rate: 6 cps (just creating channels)
> Max used Memory: 1416M
> Max CPU load: 0.24
> Max Network throughput (recv/send): 6711k/80k
> Quality: Good
>
> This test was taken before tearing down the channels.
>
> Then, I took another test to estimate calls per second, and it wasn't what
> I was expected!
>
>
> 150 Concurrent calls
> Call duration: 4s
> Call rate: 30 cps (creating and tearing down)
> Max used Memory: 1293M
> Max CPU load: 4.50
> Max Network throughput (recv/send): 828k/60k
> Quality: Average
>
> And when I increase call rate to 50 cps:
>
> 1000 Concurrent calls
> Call duration: 4s
> Call rate: 50 cps (creating and tearing down)
> Max used Memory: 1730M
> Max CPU load: 29.9
> Max Network throughput (recv/send): 1367k/202k
> Quality: Bad
>
> Why call per second is such a big problem? Did anyone get a better result
> on this?
>
> Thanks,
> Hanie
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services:
> consulting at freeswitch.org<mailto:consulting at freeswitch.org>
> http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
>
> 
> 
>
> Official FreeSWITCH Sites
> http://www.freeswitch.org
> http://wiki.freeswitch.org
> http://www.cluecon.com
>
> Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
>
> FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
> FreeSWITCH-users at lists.freeswitch.org<mailto:
> 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
>
> !DSPAM:4ff7fdea32761519618044!
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services:
> consulting at freeswitch.org
> http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
>
> 
> 
>
> Official FreeSWITCH Sites
> http://www.freeswitch.org
> http://wiki.freeswitch.org
> http://www.cluecon.com
>
> Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
>
> 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/20120707/6f081bf2/attachment-0001.html