[Freeswitch-users] New codec integration and concurrent calls limitquestions

[Steve Underwood]

On 05/17/2013 10:54 AM, Fernando Hernandez wrote:
> Thanks a lot to both for your advice, it has been really useful.
>
> Stephen, yes, I am referring to BBB. And I have a question, as far as 
> BBB is not limited by software and we need to run conference larger 
> than 25 we need to scale the hardware. But, I would like to know about 
> the possibility to distribute BBB across multiple servers, how can we 
> do it? do you know if there is any documentation about it?
>
> And about Misheshu comments, I think the licence issue will be a 
> problem. The implementation of G.729 I am talking about is 
> proprietary, not open at all, so we need to find out if it is possible 
> to use it with FreeSWITCH (I am not well versed on the licensing 
> issues, so I will read the licenses and try to understand them).
> You can check this comparison table to have an idea about this codec 
> performance,
>
> Imágenes integradas 1
>
> And finally, about audio transcoding. We use BBB and speex for the 
> encoding, but as Stephen said before, maybe the audio is not the only 
> problem we have. We need to run more tests...
>
> Thank you very much and best regards,
>
> Fernando Hernandez.
What is this table supposed to indicate? u-law, A-law and most forms of 
ADPCM (the table doesn't indicate which one) are only designed for use 
at 8k samples/second, and give poor results when used at higher rates. 
G.729 can *only* be used at 8k samples/second. Its just useless at 
higher sample rates. If "capacity" is supposed to be the number of 
channels of the codec which can be supported on an i7-2720QM why is the 
number for G.729 so low? Even a poor implementation should be faster 
than 50 channels on a quad core processor like that. The G.729 for 
Freeswitch is certainly a lot faster than 148 channels on such a processor.

Steve