Thank you guys, but I should have said that I am perfectly aware of the pps vs. bps limitations.
I had several years of experience dealing with Cisco 7200/7500 to learn about how one vendor can lie about performances :)

I was just asking this to be sure about the figures.

70k pps mean around 1400 concurrent calls if ptime is 20ms (I am assuming 70k pps means 70k for both ways. If it's 70k pps with input/output aggregated, all the following figures have to be divided by 2).
I heard that some people around get 3000 calls on one box.
So they get those 3000 calls probably spreading the load among multiple gigE cards.

It's an important information to have for people building quite large switches that one gigE card won't handle more than 1000 calls with a regular kernel.
Perhaps even 800 if you want to stay on the safe side.

David Ponzone  Direction Technique
tel:      01 74 03 18 97
gsm:   06 66 98 76 34

Service Client IPeva
tel:      0811 46 26 26

Ce message et toutes les pièces jointes sont confidentiels et établis à l'intention exclusive de ses destinataires. Toute utilisation ou diffusion non autorisée est interdite. Tout message électronique est susceptible d'altération. IPeva décline toute responsabilité au titre de ce message s'il a été altéré, déformé ou falsifié. Si vous n'êtes pas destinataire de ce message, merci de le détruire immédiatement et d'avertir l'expéditeur.




Le 23/08/2010 à 17:17, Brian West a écrit :

I think you explained it a bit more in detail... we are saying exactly the same thing just I'm a bit more brief.

/b

On Aug 23, 2010, at 9:47 AM, Nyamul Hassan wrote:

David,

In our experience, it is not about "bps", but about "pps".  Because the ethernet driver in Linux is single threaded, you cannot push beyond what a single core can handle.

In our case, after 60kpps (on Intel X5504), the quality deteriorated.  In Woody's case, this limit goes as high as 70kpps (on Intel X5550), which is roughly equivalent to the single core clock speed difference between the servers.

Brian is speaking the exact same jargon, that I came across when I was reading about this 1 year ago.

Regards
HASSAN



2010/8/23 Brian West <brian@freeswitch.org>
Chances are you're not hitting the bandwidth limits but the fact that you're moving tiny packets around.  Smaller packets == more context switches == less throughput.  You can increase your packet size to 60ms and gain performance.

/b


_______________________________________________
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org
http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
http://www.freeswitch.org