I've got about 75% decrease in performarce. I am using same server and same config. DB was already in ramdisk as svn version so I don't find an explanation for it...<br><br>Regards<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2010/8/5 Eliot Gable <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:egable%2Bfreeswitch@gmail.com">egable+freeswitch@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">My most recent testing as of about two weeks ago showed a 25%<br>
performance drop between the old SVN version I was running and the new<br>
GIT version. Initially, it seemed closer to your reported performance<br>
drop, but after moving the database to a ramdisk, it went to 25%. I am<br>
unsure of whether my initial testing was using the db on a ramdisk, so<br>
the drop could be higher if my previous testing did not have the db on<br>
a ramdisk.<br>
<br>
2010/8/3 Juan Antonio Ibaņez Santorum <<a href="mailto:juanito1982@gmail.com">juanito1982@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5">> No one experiment this same issue?<br>
><br>
> I also noticed a high cpu consume on call hangup.<br>
><br>
> Regards<br>
><br>
> 2010/8/2 Juan Antonio Ibaņez Santorum <<a href="mailto:juanito1982@gmail.com">juanito1982@gmail.com</a>><br>
>><br>
>> Hello!<br>
>><br>
>> I was been some test using one FS tarball version downloaded some weeks<br>
>> ago (FreeSWITCH Version 1.0.6 (svn-exported)) but it has some problems with<br>
>> odbc connections managemens. Now I'm using a git version (FreeSWITCH Version<br>
>> 1.0.head (git-b485f25 2010-07-30 19-46-05 -0400)) that seems to solve this<br>
>> problem but I noticed it has a high cpu load comparing with svn version.<br>
>> While I could manage more than 200 calls with a 75% CPU load into a dual<br>
>> core server using svn version, now, 50 calls consume this 75% cpu. I can see<br>
>> same modules are loaded (except new hash module needed in git version) and<br>
>> same scenario is used. I am not be able to find why now it uses more cpu<br>
>> than before. Any idea?<br>
>> Each testing call is a simple bridge to an external sip provider.<br>
>><br>
>> Regards<br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div>> _______________________________________________<br>
> FreeSWITCH-users mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org">FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users" target="_blank">http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users</a><br>
> UNSUBSCRIBE:<a href="http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users" target="_blank">http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users</a><br>
> <a href="http://www.freeswitch.org" target="_blank">http://www.freeswitch.org</a><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Eliot Gable<br>
<br>
"We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors: we borrow it from our<br>
children." ~David Brower<br>
<br>
"I decided the words were too conservative for me. We're not borrowing<br>
from our children, we're stealing from them--and it's not even<br>
considered to be a crime." ~David Brower<br>
<br>
"Esse oportet ut vivas, non vivere ut edas." (Thou shouldst eat to<br>
live; not live to eat.) ~Marcus Tullius Cicero<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org">FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users" target="_blank">http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users</a><br>
UNSUBSCRIBE:<a href="http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users" target="_blank">http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users</a><br>
<a href="http://www.freeswitch.org" target="_blank">http://www.freeswitch.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br>