The issue he will have then is that the GSM codec is not widely supported by carriers, nor by SIP devices. David Ponzone Direction Technique email: david.ponzone@ipeva.fr tel: 01 74 03 18 97 gsm: 06 66 98 76 34 Service Client IPeva tel: 0811 46 26 26 www.ipeva.fr - www.ipeva-studio.com 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 21/01/2011 à 23:41, curriegrad2004 a écrit :
One solution is to use the GSM codec instead of the g.729 codec. Although it may not sound as good as the g.729 codec, it uses about the same amount of bandwidth and less CPU iirc. The GSM codec is included in FreeSwitch by default.
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Steven Ayre <steveayre@gmail.com> wrote:
Ricardo,
"I also installed the codec g729 for transcoding from g711 to g729 (for testing purposes only)."
We're assuming you're using deepwalker's fs_itu_g729 codec?
If you're planning to transcode G729 it's always better to test with the one you're actually going to be using. You can get completely different results since they're different code bases.
fs_itu_g729 will use more CPU and memory than mod_com_g729 so you'll get different load testing results. It also has no concept of licenses, so there's no way of testing that you're handling the conditions where mod_com_g729 has reached the license limit.
-Steve
On 21 January 2011 19:13, Anthony Minessale <anthony.minessale@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, G729 is a CPU hog, especially the illegal one you are testing with. The commercial one that you can purchase from http://www.freeswitch.org probably will do slightly better but you will always get much less milage out of cpu intensive codecs.
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Ricardo Martinez <rmartinez@redvoiss.net> wrote:
Hello.
I have the opportunity to use an even more powerful server. I have just installed CentOS 5.5 64 bit, and compile freeswitch with 64 bits.
This is the output with 100 simm calls using transcoding from G711 to G729
top - 16:57:56 up 6:04, 2 users, load average: 11.60, 12.49, 12.58
Tasks: 168 total, 1 running, 167 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu0 : 35.4%us, 0.6%sy, 0.0%ni, 63.6%id, 0.3%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.1%si, 0.0%st
Cpu1 : 34.9%us, 0.6%sy, 0.0%ni, 58.8%id, 4.9%wa, 0.1%hi, 0.7%si, 0.0%st
Cpu2 : 34.9%us, 0.6%sy, 0.0%ni, 59.6%id, 4.1%wa, 0.1%hi, 0.7%si, 0.0%st
Cpu3 : 35.0%us, 0.7%sy, 0.0%ni, 62.0%id, 1.8%wa, 0.2%hi, 0.3%si, 0.0%st
Cpu4 : 35.8%us, 1.3%sy, 0.0%ni, 62.5%id, 0.2%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.1%si, 0.0%st
Cpu5 : 35.6%us, 1.6%sy, 0.0%ni, 60.1%id, 1.8%wa, 0.1%hi, 0.8%si, 0.0%st
Cpu6 : 35.8%us, 1.9%sy, 0.0%ni, 59.9%id, 1.5%wa, 0.1%hi, 0.8%si, 0.0%st
Cpu7 : 36.5%us, 2.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 60.6%id, 0.7%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.2%si, 0.0%st
Mem: 8165808k total, 1208292k used, 6957516k free, 150228k buffers
Swap: 10223608k total, 0k used, 10223608k free, 772980k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
5265 root 18 0 541m 79m 5796 S 469.5 1.0 1077:32 freeswitch
1 root 15 0 10348 684 572 S 0.0 0.0 0:01.24 init
2 root RT -5 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 migration/0
3 root 34 19 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 ksoftirqd/0
4 root RT -5 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 watchdog/0
5 root RT -5 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 migration/1
6 root 34 19 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00
Is normal the load average?
This is the output with uname –a
[root@siptrcrv2 snmp]# uname -a
Linux siptrcrv2 2.6.18-194.el5 #1 SMP Fri Apr 2 14:58:14 EDT 2010 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
Regards,
Ricardo.-
De: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org [mailto:freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org] En nombre de Brian West Enviado el: miércoles, 19 de enero de 2011 16:22 Para: FreeSWITCH Users Help
Asunto: Re: [Freeswitch-users] Question aboutCPU usage.
Chances are if you would install a 64bit OS on that there NICE 64bit CPU it would work much better.
/b
On Jan 19, 2011, at 12:43 PM, Ricardo Martinez wrote:
Hello.
[root@ser-ng bin]# uname -a
Linux 2.6.33.5-124.fc13.i686.PAE #1 SMP Fri Jun 11 09:42:24 UTC 2010 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
Ricardo.-
De: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org [mailto:freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org] En nombre de Brian West Enviado el: miércoles, 19 de enero de 2011 15:41 Para: FreeSWITCH Users Help Asunto: Re: [Freeswitch-users] Question aboutCPU usage.
Depend what does uname -a say?
/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
-- Anthony Minessale II
FreeSWITCH http://www.freeswitch.org/ ClueCon http://www.cluecon.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/FreeSWITCH_wire
AIM: anthm MSN:anthony_minessale@hotmail.com GTALK/JABBER/PAYPAL:anthony.minessale@gmail.com IRC: irc.freenode.net #freeswitch
FreeSWITCH Developer Conference sip:888@conference.freeswitch.org googletalk:conf+888@conference.freeswitch.org pstn:+19193869900
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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