We have been doing tests in order to establish benchmarks. This is the scenario: SIPp -------> FreeSWITCH -----
Destination
SIPp: SIPp is using the uac scenario with a delay of 15000ms. INVITE ----------> 100 <---------- 180 <---------- 183 <---------- 200 <---------- E-RTD1 ACK ----------> Pause [ 15.0s] BYE ----------> 200 <---------- FreeSWITCH: We have used two different servers: FS1: Virtualized Processor: Xeon @ 3.00GHz OS: Debian Kernel version: 2.6.18-6-686 FS version: 1.0 Preemption: disabled FS2: Not virtualized Processor: Intel Dual Core @ 3GHz OS: Fedora Linux 9 Kernel version: 2.6 FS version: 1.0 Preemption: enabled Both servers are running in no console mode and with ulimits, as http://wiki.freeswitch.org/wiki/Performance_testing_and_configurations and http://wiki.freeswitch.org/wiki/Long_term_testing_chevymanjosh mention. Also, both servers are using the same dialplan which access to a database via Java Script. This database receives a query with the destination number and respond with a list of destination IP. Then the calls is bridged. The results: In FS1 we have had a load average of 4.00, retransmission and errors with 7 attempts per second and 100 sessions aprox. In FS2 we have had a load average of 4.00, retransmission and errors with 13 attempts per second and 200 sessions aprox.. Conclusion: We are worried about this behavior and think about this figures are quite low in comparison to other experiences that we have seen in Wiki (1000+ calls and 50 attemps/sec) or articles. JS is not the problem, we are getting the same results using a simple dialplan. <include> <context name="default"> <extension name="init" continue="true"> <condition field="destination_number" expression="^(.*)"> <action application="set" data="accountcode2=8888"/> <action application="set" data="contexto=dp3"/> <action application="set" data="called=15555555555"/> <action application="set" data="export_vars=uuid,destination_number,accountcode2,contexto,cal <action application="bridge" data="sofia/default/1555555555555@192.168.1.182"/> </condition> </extension> </context> </include> So, all is pointing in some bad configuration that we are missing. Please, if you have any idea it would be appreciated. Thanks in advance Santiago _________________________________________________________________ Do more with your photos with Windows Live Photo Gallery. http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Wave2_photos_022008