On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Sean Devoy <sdevoy@bizfocused.com> wrote:
Their tech support is adamant that it can handle up 12 CONCURRENT CALLS at the base configuration.
That's a pretty low number of concurrent calls. I have no reason to disbelieve him.
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.
The CentOS install will require less overhead for the OS when compared to Windows. However, with a beefy box, it wouldn't even matter. FS is said to run nicely on Windows and there is no doubt that it performs well on Linux. I would only recommend Linux to someone who already knows Windows when dealing with *minimally* configured servers. In those situations, it becomes obvious (to me) that Linux is the better fit.
Should a Windows guy go with FS on Windows or do you really get more bang for your buck in a Unix environment?
Generally speaking, yes. More bang for your buck. I would go with what makes you feel comfortable for now. But, I would also encourage you to deepen your Linux know-how. All of the power, flexibility, stability, hackability, malleability, and reliability that you find in FreeSWITCH can often be found for free in the Linux ecosystem. You can expect to invest some time learning it --just like learning FreeSWITCH took time (heck, you've been learning Windows for nearly 25 years). Summary: go with what you feel good about today. Don't cheat yourself by shying away from Linux tomorrow. Good luck, Gabe