Nyamul Hassan wrote:
One thing that you are totaly "ignoring" Vlasis, is that the performance tests are irritating to the core-devs because FreeSwitch's CPS is already so high, that their effort / time are better used at improving / adding other things. Like the new "concurrent call recovery" feature, which is just simply crazy, if you ask me.
Hassan, (no irony intended, please believe me) but one thing you are totally ignoring too is that we were not debating about the validity of the tests. We were talking about attitude towards posts with questions on certain subjects. If users are still talking about performance this is because they are interested in it and are drawn to FS because of it. It's only natural to talk about it. And users of all software are talking about performance.
Just think about it, at 200 CPS, for 100% ASR (IVR) and 1 min ALOC / ACD, you're talking about 12,000 concurrent sessions. Or in a "real-life" call routing scenario, at 50% ASR and 5 mins ALOC, it is equivalent to 30,000 concurrent sessions, or 1,000 E1s!
And all that, using regular, run-of-the-mill, processor, motherboard, etc. The server Woody mentions would probably cost around $ 6,000 - 7,000/- from HP or IBM. Who can beat that? And, to top that off, Woody was comparing to 600 CPS that he got on v1.04 (36,000 or 90,000 conc. sess.)!
The core-devs are very passionate about their work. And, they have created a beast! So, get the beast to work "in real life", and then complain about problems.
Hassan, you didn't understand Woody's post neither mine. Did you read me or Woody complaining about problems with FS? I don't think so. Woody asked a very simple question. He didn't complain. Yet he was bashed. There was no complain in his message to the list, unless he sent another one which I missed completely. On the other hand, I have 2 questions regarding your comments: 1) Where exactly did you read 600 cps? Perhaps I missed a post but I only read 1 post from Woody with a scenario of 190 to 200 cps. Still a very high score, but this is not the point. 2) Sorry if it sounds ironic (again, no irony intended) but why are do you suggest that we complain about problems only after we use FS in real life? Because many of us do. On the other hand, why are lab tests that much frowned upon? Some people know how to test and reproduce production scenarios in a lab. Really.
I've seen them instantly jump into helping with the situation. Bug reports are fixed within hours. Even the "latest GIT" is claimed to be the most stable versions! Not many software projects (open source or not) can boast that, if at all. Hassan, no-one questioned the hard work put in by the developers. We were having a different discussion here.
As a sidenote, when the latest git/svn which, by nature, is work under development, is more stable than the latest stable release then yes, not many projects can boast that. On the contrary, most projects avoid this situation, because the users will have to put in production source code which is in a "fluid" state. Again, this is just a sidenote, (a comment on a comment) no intention to start a new flame here. :) Rgds, Vlasis.