Michael Collins wrote:
That begs the question… is there a mechanism in sqlite or Linux that allows for the RAM drive to be backed up periodically? That would be a cool feature to get documented for those power users like Ken! ;)
Interesting thought: http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/snapshots_backup.html
-MC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org [mailto:freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org] *On Behalf Of *Ken Rice *Sent:* Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:07 AM *To:* freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org *Subject:* Re: [Freeswitch-users] Performance bottleneck
The Disk IO on sqlite can be quite a bit... One work around for this is to create a ram drive of sufficient size and mount it to /usr/local/freeswitch/db (or whatever your db dir is for freeswitch) this helps out greatly... But anything in the db will not be saved across system reboots unless you do something about that yourself
K
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *Michael Jerris <mike@jerris.com> *Reply-To: *<freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org> *Date: *Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:59:13 -0400 *To: *<freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org> *Subject: *Re: [Freeswitch-users] Performance bottleneck
It's going to be the disk io from sqlite. The presense states are all stored in sqlite (or odbc) data source.
Mike
On Aug 12, 2008, at 1:53 PM, UV wrote:
Turning the presence off did the trick, although it would be important (to me, at least) to understand why as it changes the performance significantly. Is the presence mechanism waiting for some response from the network? I’m assuming it’s waiting on something external because I couldn’t find any CPU activity…
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org [mailto:freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org] <mailto:freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org%5d> *On Behalf Of *Anthony Minessale *Sent:* Wednesday, August 13, 2008 12:55 AM *To:* freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org *Subject:* Re: [Freeswitch-users] Performance bottleneck
9996 is not a good test extension because it does not generate any audio unless it gets some. 9998 that generates a tone or make up an ext that plays a file is a better one.
Processing of the sip calls can be delayed by the presence stuff which is very intensive, you can try turning it off and see if you get more calls. Also you should compare it to what happens with the test exten first in the dial plan.
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:58 AM, UV <uv@talknet.com.au> wrote: I'm trying to determine the FS resource bottleneck when operating under load (in windows environment), but can't get the FS to load for some unseen reason.
FS environment (a weak PC on purpose):
CPU 2x Intel Pentium 4 3GHz
RAM 2x 512MB DDR II RAM
Chipset - Intel E7221 (Copper River) chipset ICH6R + FWH + BCM5721
LAN 1x Broadcom Giga LAN
Windows 2003 Server – Service pack 2
FS version 9235
Running Release build on highest priority
Load script:
A different machine running sipP
Running rtp_echo load, 50 cps, limit of 1000 calls, 30sec call duration, extension 9996 (echo test):
sipp -rtp_echo -r 50 -l 1000 -d 30000 -s 9996 -sf auc.xml -mp 25000 -i 192.168.1.1 <http://192.168.1.1> -mi 192.168.1.1 <http://192.168.1.1> 192.168.1.2 <http://192.168.1.2>
Results:
Test ran for 9.5 hours
Total of 48828 calls - all successful
No timeouts, retransmissions or unexpected messages.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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