Can you produce some example code that we can test on other architectures? What exactly were you doing in mod_skinny? if you copied mod_event_socket it may be true your blocking approach is better but mod_event_socket has some high performance reasons to not block. We use the centos kernel and trying to make it work better on debian with a newer kernel could disrupt our stable user base. consider making a mod_debug or mod_testperf we can mess with on many boxes. On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Mathieu Parent <math.parent@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Anthony Minessale <anthony.minessale@gmail.com> wrote:
What do you mean by high cpu exactly? when going blocking-mode, the user CPU gets lower and the kernel CPU is similar.
what are you using to measure it? top, vmstat
without mod_skinny mathieu@netthieu:~/apps/freeswitch/freeswitch.git$ vmstat 5 5 procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system-- ----cpu---- r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa 7 0 48 175552 161664 787636 0 0 8 10 184 361 6 8 86 1 1 0 48 171948 161672 791372 0 0 0 5 4141 9191 14 12 74 0 0 0 48 171700 161684 791496 0 0 0 11 4125 9081 13 9 78 0 0 0 48 175048 161688 787860 0 0 0 3 4344 9177 7 10 84 0 6 0 48 175048 161692 787860 0 0 0 1 4225 9035 9 11 80 0
with mod_skinny NONBLOCKED mathieu@netthieu:~/apps/freeswitch/freeswitch.git$ vmstat 5 5 procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system-- ----cpu---- r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa 1 0 48 172668 162104 789052 0 0 8 10 190 374 6 8 86 1 1 0 48 173528 162108 788652 0 0 0 2 4792 10346 15 13 72 0 1 0 48 173528 162124 788664 0 0 0 17 4678 10326 9 12 78 0 0 0 48 173528 162124 788628 0 0 0 1 4788 10343 10 14 77 0 9 0 48 166956 162136 792764 0 0 0 10 4592 10535 16 13 71 0
with mod_skinny BLOCKED mathieu@netthieu:~/apps/freeswitch/freeswitch.git$ vmstat 5 5 procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system-- ----cpu---- r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa 0 0 48 175288 161648 787832 0 0 8 10 182 358 6 8 86 1 1 0 48 175280 161648 787824 0 0 0 0 4236 9054 7 9 83 0 7 0 48 175404 161648 787804 0 0 0 3 4173 8927 7 10 83 0 0 0 48 175280 161652 787576 0 0 0 5 4288 9182 9 10 81 0 6 0 48 175404 161656 787580 0 0 0 4 4209 9001 8 10 82 0
So it seems that both %user and %system are lower. I have not done complete tests but mod_skinny is more responsive in BLOCKING-mode
what OS are you on? Linux netthieu 2.6.32-5-686 #1 SMP Thu Aug 12 13:38:27 UTC 2010 i686 GNU/Linux
this is Debian testing using FS built from recent git using debian packaging.
in my findings not more efficient, not at all reliable. Googling some, I found (from http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-async/)
"Synchronous non-blocking I/O: A less efficient variant of synchronous blocking". This is what we are doing?
The good solutions IMO are: - Synchronous blocking I/O: simple and efficient - Asynchronous blocking I/O: not so good. use of "select" is not recommended - Asynchronous non-blocking I/O (AIO) which is a completely different API (portable?) which should fit well with FS's event model but with a lot of work
Maybe we can make it configurable at build-time (as it is in mod_skinny) to allow performance testing? Perhaps the results will be very different from one platform to another.
Mathieu
_______________________________________________ FreeSWITCH-dev mailing list FreeSWITCH-dev@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-dev UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-dev http://www.freeswitch.org
-- Anthony Minessale II FreeSWITCH http://www.freeswitch.org/ ClueCon http://www.cluecon.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/FreeSWITCH_wire AIM: anthm MSN:anthony_minessale@hotmail.com GTALK/JABBER/PAYPAL:anthony.minessale@gmail.com IRC: irc.freenode.net #freeswitch FreeSWITCH Developer Conference sip:888@conference.freeswitch.org googletalk:conf+888@conference.freeswitch.org pstn:+19193869900