Thanks all replies to this thread, I got more clear idea. On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Michael Collins <msc@freeswitch.org> wrote:
What happened when you created several thousand bridged channels as opposed to 2-person conferences? Just curious to see where your upper limits came in to play there. -MC
MC, I'm not sure I get what do you mean. I think the fact is that conferences use more resources(threads) than bridges, it just failed to create new threads at about 2560 threads on Mac. I used the default ulimit values. Since I was trying to compare conferences over bridges but not load test, so I didn't care about much of upper limits. Anyway I will never use in production on Mac. On Linux, I created 2400 bridged channels(think about loopback using double than normal calls), and without hangup all the calls, I start to create 2400 conference channels, loadavg boost to over 2000 from some where, so I executed "hupall" to avoid crash the whole sever. ( before I saw 2000 loadavg, the max loadavg I seen is about 60 on linux and that server is no-response at all, I was lucky that I can still control the server on loadavg 2000. I almost used the default config(say loglevel 7), so bottle necks might be everywhere. Anyway I got my conclusion. Thanks.