<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I would go with option 4 + a good caching strategy on the socket application side. Having an specialized application without the HTTP overhead should be faster (at least in theory). And if you can avoid the db lookup by having a second level cache integrated on the app, be prepared to near real-time responses </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;color:#1F497D'>J</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org [mailto:freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>envelopes envelopes<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, April 13, 2012 10:18 AM<br><b>To:</b> FreeSWITCH Users Help<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Freeswitch-users] dynamic dialplan alternatives<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p>Choice 3 or 4 should be your long term strategic direction.<o:p></o:p></p><p>On Apr 13, 2012 8:39 AM, "huseyin kalyoncu" <<a href="mailto:hkalyoncu@gmail.com">hkalyoncu@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>><br>> we are currently have two fs boxes load balanced by osips.<br>> in each fs we have dynamic dialplan with mod_xml_curl using php & apache & mysql.<br>> this conf is doing just fine with current load (about 20 cps) but with the<br>> increasing of incoming traffic, it shows some performance issues.<br>> we want to increase our call throughput.<br>><br>> i searched through fs site and mailing list and came up with following options:<br>><br>> 1) using lua or(python?) to serve dialplan instead of mod_xml_curl<br>> 2) writing a dialplan module(something like mod_xml_curl) in c which will do all<br>> the db lookups etc..<br>> 3) using mod_erlang_event in outbound mode & spawning several erlang<br>> workers to do db lookups etc..<br>> 4) using mod_event_socket in outbound mode & making db lookups on a<br>> different server.<br>><br>> there is little information about 3 and 4 (only relative wiki pages) <br>> so im not sure even they are make any sense. <br>><br>> before choosing one of above options i want to ask that<br>> which one of these would you prefer to increase performance. or do you<br>> have another suggestion other than these?<br>><br>><br>> thanks & best regards,<br>> Hüseyin Kalyoncu<br>><br>> _________________________________________________________________________<br>> Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services:<br>> <a href="mailto:consulting@freeswitch.org">consulting@freeswitch.org</a><br>> <a href="http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com">http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com</a><br>><br>> FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server<br>> <a href="http://www.cudatel.com">http://www.cudatel.com</a><br>><br>> Official FreeSWITCH Sites<br>> <a href="http://www.freeswitch.org">http://www.freeswitch.org</a><br>> <a href="http://wiki.freeswitch.org">http://wiki.freeswitch.org</a><br>> <a href="http://www.cluecon.com">http://www.cluecon.com</a><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">http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users</a><br>> UNSUBSCRIBE:<a href="http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users">http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users</a><br>> <a href="http://www.freeswitch.org">http://www.freeswitch.org</a><br>><o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>