<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=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@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:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-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;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@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="color:#1F497D">I’ve run FreeSWITCH under Linux and Windows. On Windows, I had no problems sustaining hundreds of calls/sec, over 2000 sessions (without media). And that was in a virtualized (Hyper-V) system with a Q6600 processor;
I think about 2 cores were used. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">One big caveat for 32-bit FS on Windows. FS is…liberal…when it comes to managing threads. It doesn’t use lightweight threads or continuations, it really just spawns threads left and right. On Windows, the default
stack is 1MB, so you can quickly run out of memory addresses on a 32-bit process. So, either run x64 FS, or adjust the stack size.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Unless you’re really getting into high-end performance, then I highly doubt the OS matters. And even then, I haven’t seen any benchmarks showing Linux with much higher performance for FreeSWITCH. The more important
stuff is the rest of the stack, like fail2ban, OpenSIPS, iptables versus the not-so-amazing Windows Firewall, etc.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">As others have said, definitely go with whatever makes you more comfortable.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">-Michael<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="color:#1F497D">
<o:p></o:p></span></a></p>
<div>
<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>Sean Devoy<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, July 25, 2012 7:08 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Freeswitch-users] What's better Unix ro Windows? LOL<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I really hope this does not blow up into an ideological jihad, but I am curious what people think and if they have any evidence to support their claims. I am in fact a long time windows developer (anyone remember windows 2.2 – that was
hard shit). I have chosen what may be a unique approach to FS “Configuration, Command and Control”.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I started using FS by building it on Centos 5.n. Fighting, scratching and clawing it into a working multi-tenant switch. Looking back, everything I needed to do was in the email tree, I just didn’t know what to ask. I have now moved
FS on to a “production” VPS server for $30 a month with amazing success. See it here:
<a href="http://www.synapseglobal.com/voip_services.php">http://www.synapseglobal.com/voip_services.php</a> It comes prebuilt with Centos and FS latest build compiled and ready to go. That’s not why I am writing though. Their tech support is adamant that
it can handle up 12 CONCURRENT CALLS at the base configuration.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I learned about IPTABLES and FAIL2BAN and like them very much. However, I still work better/faster/surer in my Windows environment. So, I have taken what some might think is the worst possible approach: Configure and Control my Centos
FS Server from my own ASP.NET Web Application (hosted elsewhere). My approach is to use the socket interface to send commands and use programmatic SFTP to the SHH shell for XML file exchange. I am about 85% done with version 1.0 and very pleased with it.
I hope to have customers be able to login and modify their own configurations (call routes, IVRs, extensions mapping to devices line keys, Cisco spa504g provisioning, etc). Other device provisioning is in the pipe, but we have all 504Gs here and the provisioning
code has been a tremendous help.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Anyway, that is how I got to the odd work configuration, now I would like a discussion:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">My belief is that the “slim profile” of Centos will allow FS to handle greater load on a given hardware profile than could be handled by FS on Windows with the same hardware. I would like to AVOID the issues of security for this discussion,
I firmly believe that you will provide better security on the platform that you understand the best. Let’s just talk RAM, MIPS, NICs and FS performance and other issues I might be missing.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Should a Windows guy go with FS on Windows or do you really get more bang for your buck in a Unix environment?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I look forward to reading your thoughts.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sean<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>