Performance Testing
Hi all, I searched for FreeSwitch call capacity, but most of the results wasn't new. So, I wanna ask if anybody has either tested FreeSwitch's performance recently, or got a dramatic result in real environment? I tested call quality on this machine: Virtual FreeSwitch server OS: CentOS release 6.2 - x86_64 CPU: 8 processor - Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5670 @ 2.93GHz Memory: 8 G After receiving incoming calls, FreeSwitch routed them to another sip server, without transcoding. The other server transmitted calls by playing an audio file. Meanwhile, I called an extension in FreeSwitch to test the call quality. The result was like this: 1000 Concurrent calls Call duration: 160s Call rate: 6 cps (just creating channels) Max used Memory: 1416M Max CPU load: 0.24 Max Network throughput (recv/send): 6711k/80k Quality: Good This test was taken before tearing down the channels. Then, I took another test to estimate calls per second, and it wasn't what I was expected! 150 Concurrent calls Call duration: 4s Call rate: 30 cps (creating and tearing down) Max used Memory: 1293M Max CPU load: 4.50 Max Network throughput (recv/send): 828k/60k Quality: Average And when I increase call rate to 50 cps: 1000 Concurrent calls Call duration: 4s Call rate: 50 cps (creating and tearing down) Max used Memory: 1730M Max CPU load: *29.9* Max Network throughput (recv/send): 1367k/202k Quality: Bad Why call per second is such a big problem? Did anyone get a better result on this? Thanks, Hanie
Before trying anything else, use real hardware instead of virtual. A virtual server with this kind of load will only cause you trouble. Actually - most virtual solutions will cause you problems :) Also, performance with average call duration of 4s is not really anything that would happen in real life. But first of all - get real hardware. /Peter ________________________________ Från: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org [freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org] för Hanie Maghsoudy [h.maghsoudy@gmail.com] Skickat: den 7 juli 2012 09:46 Till: FreeSWITCH Users Help Ämne: [Freeswitch-users] Performance Testing Hi all, I searched for FreeSwitch call capacity, but most of the results wasn't new. So, I wanna ask if anybody has either tested FreeSwitch's performance recently, or got a dramatic result in real environment? I tested call quality on this machine: Virtual FreeSwitch server OS: CentOS release 6.2 - x86_64 CPU: 8 processor - Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5670 @ 2.93GHz Memory: 8 G After receiving incoming calls, FreeSwitch routed them to another sip server, without transcoding. The other server transmitted calls by playing an audio file. Meanwhile, I called an extension in FreeSwitch to test the call quality. The result was like this: 1000 Concurrent calls Call duration: 160s Call rate: 6 cps (just creating channels) Max used Memory: 1416M Max CPU load: 0.24 Max Network throughput (recv/send): 6711k/80k Quality: Good This test was taken before tearing down the channels. Then, I took another test to estimate calls per second, and it wasn't what I was expected! 150 Concurrent calls Call duration: 4s Call rate: 30 cps (creating and tearing down) Max used Memory: 1293M Max CPU load: 4.50 Max Network throughput (recv/send): 828k/60k Quality: Average And when I increase call rate to 50 cps: 1000 Concurrent calls Call duration: 4s Call rate: 50 cps (creating and tearing down) Max used Memory: 1730M Max CPU load: 29.9 Max Network throughput (recv/send): 1367k/202k Quality: Bad Why call per second is such a big problem? Did anyone get a better result on this? Thanks, Hanie !DSPAM:4ff7e86232761844718139!
This is an interesting area. I would be fascinated to compare real with virtual hardware. We're deploying some fs hosts on "the cloud" and some of these hosted systems are pretty virtualised (eg. Linode uses Xen XPS) and some aren't (Hetzner being an example). It would be nice to start an area of the Wiki for this. It may be fairly random/adhoc contributions to start with, but I'm sure a structure could emerge with time. Any scripts used (with instructions) that could quickly be deployed to a host somewhere would be a good start. Also sound recordings of sound quality (together, perhaps, with measurements of latency) would help improve the authority of results. We would most probably be prepared to donate a day or so of testing. On 7 Jul 2012, at 09:05, Peter Olsson wrote:
Before trying anything else, use real hardware instead of virtual. A virtual server with this kind of load will only cause you trouble. Actually - most virtual solutions will cause you problems :)
Also, performance with average call duration of 4s is not really anything that would happen in real life.
But first of all - get real hardware.
/Peter
________________________________ Från: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org [freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org] för Hanie Maghsoudy [h.maghsoudy@gmail.com] Skickat: den 7 juli 2012 09:46 Till: FreeSWITCH Users Help Ämne: [Freeswitch-users] Performance Testing
Hi all,
I searched for FreeSwitch call capacity, but most of the results wasn't new. So, I wanna ask if anybody has either tested FreeSwitch's performance recently, or got a dramatic result in real environment?
I tested call quality on this machine:
Virtual FreeSwitch server OS: CentOS release 6.2 - x86_64 CPU: 8 processor - Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5670 @ 2.93GHz Memory: 8 G
After receiving incoming calls, FreeSwitch routed them to another sip server, without transcoding. The other server transmitted calls by playing an audio file. Meanwhile, I called an extension in FreeSwitch to test the call quality.
The result was like this:
1000 Concurrent calls Call duration: 160s Call rate: 6 cps (just creating channels) Max used Memory: 1416M Max CPU load: 0.24 Max Network throughput (recv/send): 6711k/80k Quality: Good
This test was taken before tearing down the channels.
Then, I took another test to estimate calls per second, and it wasn't what I was expected!
150 Concurrent calls Call duration: 4s Call rate: 30 cps (creating and tearing down) Max used Memory: 1293M Max CPU load: 4.50 Max Network throughput (recv/send): 828k/60k Quality: Average
And when I increase call rate to 50 cps:
1000 Concurrent calls Call duration: 4s Call rate: 50 cps (creating and tearing down) Max used Memory: 1730M Max CPU load: 29.9 Max Network throughput (recv/send): 1367k/202k Quality: Bad
Why call per second is such a big problem? Did anyone get a better result on this?
Thanks, Hanie
!DSPAM:4ff7e86232761844718139!
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
Thanks Peter, I will definitely test with a real server too. But, first of all, I'm really interested to know that what the result looks like for the others (perhaps with real servers in real environment). On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Peter Olsson < peter.olsson@visionutveckling.se> wrote:
Before trying anything else, use real hardware instead of virtual. A virtual server with this kind of load will only cause you trouble. Actually - most virtual solutions will cause you problems :)
Also, performance with average call duration of 4s is not really anything that would happen in real life.
But first of all - get real hardware.
/Peter
________________________________ Från: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org [ freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org] för Hanie Maghsoudy [ h.maghsoudy@gmail.com] Skickat: den 7 juli 2012 09:46 Till: FreeSWITCH Users Help Ämne: [Freeswitch-users] Performance Testing
Hi all,
I searched for FreeSwitch call capacity, but most of the results wasn't new. So, I wanna ask if anybody has either tested FreeSwitch's performance recently, or got a dramatic result in real environment?
I tested call quality on this machine:
Virtual FreeSwitch server OS: CentOS release 6.2 - x86_64 CPU: 8 processor - Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5670 @ 2.93GHz Memory: 8 G
After receiving incoming calls, FreeSwitch routed them to another sip server, without transcoding. The other server transmitted calls by playing an audio file. Meanwhile, I called an extension in FreeSwitch to test the call quality.
The result was like this:
1000 Concurrent calls Call duration: 160s Call rate: 6 cps (just creating channels) Max used Memory: 1416M Max CPU load: 0.24 Max Network throughput (recv/send): 6711k/80k Quality: Good
This test was taken before tearing down the channels.
Then, I took another test to estimate calls per second, and it wasn't what I was expected!
150 Concurrent calls Call duration: 4s Call rate: 30 cps (creating and tearing down) Max used Memory: 1293M Max CPU load: 4.50 Max Network throughput (recv/send): 828k/60k Quality: Average
And when I increase call rate to 50 cps:
1000 Concurrent calls Call duration: 4s Call rate: 50 cps (creating and tearing down) Max used Memory: 1730M Max CPU load: 29.9 Max Network throughput (recv/send): 1367k/202k Quality: Bad
Why call per second is such a big problem? Did anyone get a better result on this?
Thanks, Hanie
!DSPAM:4ff7e86232761844718139!
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
The common answer is "it depends".. It depends on many different aspects, for instance: transcoding, script handling, media bypass etc. So there is no answer that is valid for everyone. There are also easy changes that can be made to improve performance, putting the sqlite databases on a RAM-drive is one common task. Also make sure to have as many CPU cores as possible, lots of RAM, and med sure to use 64-bit systems. I've never done any testing myself, so I don't know really. But I know there are people out there handling thousands of concurrent calls, at pretty high CPS. One more thing though, that will help you out right now. FS doesn't behave 100% correctly in CentOS 6.x, CentOS 6.x causes much higher CPU load, compared to CentOX 5.x. So right now CentOS 6.x is not officially supported by FS (until the reasons for this has been discovered). If you switch to real hardware and use CentOS 5.x I'm pretty sure that will give you much better results. These issues on Jira are related to CentOS 6.x problems. FS-4396<http://jira.freeswitch.org/browse/FS-4396> FS-4316<http://jira.freeswitch.org/browse/FS-4316> /Peter ________________________________ Från: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org [freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org] för Hanie Maghsoudy [h.maghsoudy@gmail.com] Skickat: den 7 juli 2012 11:18 Till: FreeSWITCH Users Help Ämne: Re: [Freeswitch-users] Performance Testing Thanks Peter, I will definitely test with a real server too. But, first of all, I'm really interested to know that what the result looks like for the others (perhaps with real servers in real environment). On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Peter Olsson <peter.olsson@visionutveckling.se<mailto:peter.olsson@visionutveckling.se>> wrote: Before trying anything else, use real hardware instead of virtual. A virtual server with this kind of load will only cause you trouble. Actually - most virtual solutions will cause you problems :) Also, performance with average call duration of 4s is not really anything that would happen in real life. But first of all - get real hardware. /Peter ________________________________ Från: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org<mailto:freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org> [freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org<mailto:freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org>] för Hanie Maghsoudy [h.maghsoudy@gmail.com<mailto:h.maghsoudy@gmail.com>] Skickat: den 7 juli 2012 09:46 Till: FreeSWITCH Users Help Ämne: [Freeswitch-users] Performance Testing Hi all, I searched for FreeSwitch call capacity, but most of the results wasn't new. So, I wanna ask if anybody has either tested FreeSwitch's performance recently, or got a dramatic result in real environment? I tested call quality on this machine: Virtual FreeSwitch server OS: CentOS release 6.2 - x86_64 CPU: 8 processor - Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5670 @ 2.93GHz Memory: 8 G After receiving incoming calls, FreeSwitch routed them to another sip server, without transcoding. The other server transmitted calls by playing an audio file. Meanwhile, I called an extension in FreeSwitch to test the call quality. The result was like this: 1000 Concurrent calls Call duration: 160s Call rate: 6 cps (just creating channels) Max used Memory: 1416M Max CPU load: 0.24 Max Network throughput (recv/send): 6711k/80k Quality: Good This test was taken before tearing down the channels. Then, I took another test to estimate calls per second, and it wasn't what I was expected! 150 Concurrent calls Call duration: 4s Call rate: 30 cps (creating and tearing down) Max used Memory: 1293M Max CPU load: 4.50 Max Network throughput (recv/send): 828k/60k Quality: Average And when I increase call rate to 50 cps: 1000 Concurrent calls Call duration: 4s Call rate: 50 cps (creating and tearing down) Max used Memory: 1730M Max CPU load: 29.9 Max Network throughput (recv/send): 1367k/202k Quality: Bad Why call per second is such a big problem? Did anyone get a better result on this? Thanks, Hanie _________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org<mailto:consulting@freeswitch.org> http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012 FreeSWITCH-users mailing list FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org<mailto: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 !DSPAM:4ff7fdea32761519618044!
That was really informative. Thanks alot. On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Peter Olsson < peter.olsson@visionutveckling.se> wrote:
The common answer is "it depends"..
It depends on many different aspects, for instance: transcoding, script handling, media bypass etc. So there is no answer that is valid for everyone. There are also easy changes that can be made to improve performance, putting the sqlite databases on a RAM-drive is one common task.
Also make sure to have as many CPU cores as possible, lots of RAM, and med sure to use 64-bit systems.
I've never done any testing myself, so I don't know really. But I know there are people out there handling thousands of concurrent calls, at pretty high CPS.
One more thing though, that will help you out right now. FS doesn't behave 100% correctly in CentOS 6.x, CentOS 6.x causes much higher CPU load, compared to CentOX 5.x. So right now CentOS 6.x is not officially supported by FS (until the reasons for this has been discovered). If you switch to real hardware and use CentOS 5.x I'm pretty sure that will give you much better results.
These issues on Jira are related to CentOS 6.x problems.
FS-4396<http://jira.freeswitch.org/browse/FS-4396> FS-4316<http://jira.freeswitch.org/browse/FS-4316>
/Peter
________________________________ Från: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org [ freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org] för Hanie Maghsoudy [ h.maghsoudy@gmail.com] Skickat: den 7 juli 2012 11:18 Till: FreeSWITCH Users Help Ämne: Re: [Freeswitch-users] Performance Testing
Thanks Peter, I will definitely test with a real server too. But, first of all, I'm really interested to know that what the result looks like for the others (perhaps with real servers in real environment).
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Peter Olsson < peter.olsson@visionutveckling.se<mailto:peter.olsson@visionutveckling.se>> wrote: Before trying anything else, use real hardware instead of virtual. A virtual server with this kind of load will only cause you trouble. Actually - most virtual solutions will cause you problems :)
Also, performance with average call duration of 4s is not really anything that would happen in real life.
But first of all - get real hardware.
/Peter
________________________________ Från: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org<mailto: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org> [ freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org<mailto: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org>] för Hanie Maghsoudy [ h.maghsoudy@gmail.com<mailto:h.maghsoudy@gmail.com>] Skickat: den 7 juli 2012 09:46 Till: FreeSWITCH Users Help Ämne: [Freeswitch-users] Performance Testing
Hi all,
I searched for FreeSwitch call capacity, but most of the results wasn't new. So, I wanna ask if anybody has either tested FreeSwitch's performance recently, or got a dramatic result in real environment?
I tested call quality on this machine:
Virtual FreeSwitch server OS: CentOS release 6.2 - x86_64 CPU: 8 processor - Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5670 @ 2.93GHz Memory: 8 G
After receiving incoming calls, FreeSwitch routed them to another sip server, without transcoding. The other server transmitted calls by playing an audio file. Meanwhile, I called an extension in FreeSwitch to test the call quality.
The result was like this:
1000 Concurrent calls Call duration: 160s Call rate: 6 cps (just creating channels) Max used Memory: 1416M Max CPU load: 0.24 Max Network throughput (recv/send): 6711k/80k Quality: Good
This test was taken before tearing down the channels.
Then, I took another test to estimate calls per second, and it wasn't what I was expected!
150 Concurrent calls Call duration: 4s Call rate: 30 cps (creating and tearing down) Max used Memory: 1293M Max CPU load: 4.50 Max Network throughput (recv/send): 828k/60k Quality: Average
And when I increase call rate to 50 cps:
1000 Concurrent calls Call duration: 4s Call rate: 50 cps (creating and tearing down) Max used Memory: 1730M Max CPU load: 29.9 Max Network throughput (recv/send): 1367k/202k Quality: Bad
Why call per second is such a big problem? Did anyone get a better result on this?
Thanks, Hanie
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org<mailto:consulting@freeswitch.org> http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org<mailto: 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
!DSPAM:4ff7fdea32761519618044!
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
From my experience playing with different CPS values. The CPU spike is usually caused by the 'tearing down' process. If you increase the call duration, you will be able to see CPU spikes when channels times out and starting to tear down.
Henry On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Hanie Maghsoudy <h.maghsoudy@gmail.com>wrote:
Hi all,
I searched for FreeSwitch call capacity, but most of the results wasn't new. So, I wanna ask if anybody has either tested FreeSwitch's performance recently, or got a dramatic result in real environment?
I tested call quality on this machine:
Virtual FreeSwitch server OS: CentOS release 6.2 - x86_64 CPU: 8 processor - Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5670 @ 2.93GHz Memory: 8 G
After receiving incoming calls, FreeSwitch routed them to another sip server, without transcoding. The other server transmitted calls by playing an audio file. Meanwhile, I called an extension in FreeSwitch to test the call quality.
The result was like this:
1000 Concurrent calls Call duration: 160s Call rate: 6 cps (just creating channels) Max used Memory: 1416M Max CPU load: 0.24 Max Network throughput (recv/send): 6711k/80k Quality: Good
This test was taken before tearing down the channels.
Then, I took another test to estimate calls per second, and it wasn't what I was expected!
150 Concurrent calls Call duration: 4s Call rate: 30 cps (creating and tearing down) Max used Memory: 1293M Max CPU load: 4.50 Max Network throughput (recv/send): 828k/60k Quality: Average
And when I increase call rate to 50 cps:
1000 Concurrent calls Call duration: 4s Call rate: 50 cps (creating and tearing down) Max used Memory: 1730M Max CPU load: *29.9* Max Network throughput (recv/send): 1367k/202k Quality: Bad
Why call per second is such a big problem? Did anyone get a better result on this?
Thanks, Hanie
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
What CDR mod are you using? Are you writing large CDRs, e.g. xml_cdr to disk? Perhaps that's messing with the load average. And regarding ACD... for example, my calling card "good" traffic has an ACD of about or over ~3 minutes. See if 50cps but 120-180 second ACD still has that issue... after you check the CDRs. -Avi On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Henry Huang <red.rain.seven@gmail.com>wrote:
From my experience playing with different CPS values. The CPU spike is usually caused by the 'tearing down' process. If you increase the call duration, you will be able to see CPU spikes when channels times out and starting to tear down.
Henry
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Hanie Maghsoudy <h.maghsoudy@gmail.com>wrote:
Hi all,
I searched for FreeSwitch call capacity, but most of the results wasn't new. So, I wanna ask if anybody has either tested FreeSwitch's performance recently, or got a dramatic result in real environment?
I tested call quality on this machine:
Virtual FreeSwitch server OS: CentOS release 6.2 - x86_64 CPU: 8 processor - Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5670 @ 2.93GHz Memory: 8 G
After receiving incoming calls, FreeSwitch routed them to another sip server, without transcoding. The other server transmitted calls by playing an audio file. Meanwhile, I called an extension in FreeSwitch to test the call quality.
The result was like this:
1000 Concurrent calls Call duration: 160s Call rate: 6 cps (just creating channels) Max used Memory: 1416M Max CPU load: 0.24 Max Network throughput (recv/send): 6711k/80k Quality: Good
This test was taken before tearing down the channels.
Then, I took another test to estimate calls per second, and it wasn't what I was expected!
150 Concurrent calls Call duration: 4s Call rate: 30 cps (creating and tearing down) Max used Memory: 1293M Max CPU load: 4.50 Max Network throughput (recv/send): 828k/60k Quality: Average
And when I increase call rate to 50 cps:
1000 Concurrent calls Call duration: 4s Call rate: 50 cps (creating and tearing down) Max used Memory: 1730M Max CPU load: *29.9* Max Network throughput (recv/send): 1367k/202k Quality: Bad
Why call per second is such a big problem? Did anyone get a better result on this?
Thanks, Hanie
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
Yeah, I believe so, since when calls are establishing the cpu load is not a problem. On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Henry Huang <red.rain.seven@gmail.com>wrote:
From my experience playing with different CPS values. The CPU spike is usually caused by the 'tearing down' process. If you increase the call duration, you will be able to see CPU spikes when channels times out and starting to tear down.
Henry
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Hanie Maghsoudy <h.maghsoudy@gmail.com>wrote:
Hi all,
I searched for FreeSwitch call capacity, but most of the results wasn't new. So, I wanna ask if anybody has either tested FreeSwitch's performance recently, or got a dramatic result in real environment?
I tested call quality on this machine:
Virtual FreeSwitch server OS: CentOS release 6.2 - x86_64 CPU: 8 processor - Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5670 @ 2.93GHz Memory: 8 G
After receiving incoming calls, FreeSwitch routed them to another sip server, without transcoding. The other server transmitted calls by playing an audio file. Meanwhile, I called an extension in FreeSwitch to test the call quality.
The result was like this:
1000 Concurrent calls Call duration: 160s Call rate: 6 cps (just creating channels) Max used Memory: 1416M Max CPU load: 0.24 Max Network throughput (recv/send): 6711k/80k Quality: Good
This test was taken before tearing down the channels.
Then, I took another test to estimate calls per second, and it wasn't what I was expected!
150 Concurrent calls Call duration: 4s Call rate: 30 cps (creating and tearing down) Max used Memory: 1293M Max CPU load: 4.50 Max Network throughput (recv/send): 828k/60k Quality: Average
And when I increase call rate to 50 cps:
1000 Concurrent calls Call duration: 4s Call rate: 50 cps (creating and tearing down) Max used Memory: 1730M Max CPU load: *29.9* Max Network throughput (recv/send): 1367k/202k Quality: Bad
Why call per second is such a big problem? Did anyone get a better result on this?
Thanks, Hanie
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
So have you tried writing with the smaller mod_json or even smaller mod_cdr_csv with your own small template? Or having mod_xml_cdr / mod_json_cdr POST the CDRs to another machine to process? -Avi On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Hanie Maghsoudy <h.maghsoudy@gmail.com>wrote:
Yeah, I believe so, since when calls are establishing the cpu load is not a problem.
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Henry Huang <red.rain.seven@gmail.com>wrote:
From my experience playing with different CPS values. The CPU spike is usually caused by the 'tearing down' process. If you increase the call duration, you will be able to see CPU spikes when channels times out and starting to tear down.
Henry
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Hanie Maghsoudy <h.maghsoudy@gmail.com>wrote:
Hi all,
I searched for FreeSwitch call capacity, but most of the results wasn't new. So, I wanna ask if anybody has either tested FreeSwitch's performance recently, or got a dramatic result in real environment?
I tested call quality on this machine:
Virtual FreeSwitch server OS: CentOS release 6.2 - x86_64 CPU: 8 processor - Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5670 @ 2.93GHz Memory: 8 G
After receiving incoming calls, FreeSwitch routed them to another sip server, without transcoding. The other server transmitted calls by playing an audio file. Meanwhile, I called an extension in FreeSwitch to test the call quality.
The result was like this:
1000 Concurrent calls Call duration: 160s Call rate: 6 cps (just creating channels) Max used Memory: 1416M Max CPU load: 0.24 Max Network throughput (recv/send): 6711k/80k Quality: Good
This test was taken before tearing down the channels.
Then, I took another test to estimate calls per second, and it wasn't what I was expected!
150 Concurrent calls Call duration: 4s Call rate: 30 cps (creating and tearing down) Max used Memory: 1293M Max CPU load: 4.50 Max Network throughput (recv/send): 828k/60k Quality: Average
And when I increase call rate to 50 cps:
1000 Concurrent calls Call duration: 4s Call rate: 50 cps (creating and tearing down) Max used Memory: 1730M Max CPU load: *29.9* Max Network throughput (recv/send): 1367k/202k Quality: Bad
Why call per second is such a big problem? Did anyone get a better result on this?
Thanks, Hanie
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
Avi So are you saying that using mod_json for mod_cdr_csv can reduce the cpu load comparing to using xml_cdr? I knew it has to do with writing CDR when tearing down the channels and I thought it was inevitable. Thanks, Henry On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Avi Marcus <avi@avimarcus.net> wrote:
So have you tried writing with the smaller mod_json or even smaller mod_cdr_csv with your own small template? Or having mod_xml_cdr / mod_json_cdr POST the CDRs to another machine to process?
-Avi
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Hanie Maghsoudy <h.maghsoudy@gmail.com>wrote:
Yeah, I believe so, since when calls are establishing the cpu load is not a problem.
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Henry Huang <red.rain.seven@gmail.com>wrote:
From my experience playing with different CPS values. The CPU spike is usually caused by the 'tearing down' process. If you increase the call duration, you will be able to see CPU spikes when channels times out and starting to tear down.
Henry
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Hanie Maghsoudy <h.maghsoudy@gmail.com>wrote:
Hi all,
I searched for FreeSwitch call capacity, but most of the results wasn't new. So, I wanna ask if anybody has either tested FreeSwitch's performance recently, or got a dramatic result in real environment?
I tested call quality on this machine:
Virtual FreeSwitch server OS: CentOS release 6.2 - x86_64 CPU: 8 processor - Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5670 @ 2.93GHz Memory: 8 G
After receiving incoming calls, FreeSwitch routed them to another sip server, without transcoding. The other server transmitted calls by playing an audio file. Meanwhile, I called an extension in FreeSwitch to test the call quality.
The result was like this:
1000 Concurrent calls Call duration: 160s Call rate: 6 cps (just creating channels) Max used Memory: 1416M Max CPU load: 0.24 Max Network throughput (recv/send): 6711k/80k Quality: Good
This test was taken before tearing down the channels.
Then, I took another test to estimate calls per second, and it wasn't what I was expected!
150 Concurrent calls Call duration: 4s Call rate: 30 cps (creating and tearing down) Max used Memory: 1293M Max CPU load: 4.50 Max Network throughput (recv/send): 828k/60k Quality: Average
And when I increase call rate to 50 cps:
1000 Concurrent calls Call duration: 4s Call rate: 50 cps (creating and tearing down) Max used Memory: 1730M Max CPU load: *29.9* Max Network throughput (recv/send): 1367k/202k Quality: Bad
Why call per second is such a big problem? Did anyone get a better result on this?
Thanks, Hanie
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
I just know the actual data size of mod_json_cdr is smaller than mod_xml_cdr... are you sure it's the CDR generation time and not the cpu usage of writing it to disk? Try a) mod_cdr_csv instead, b) mod_json_cdr instead, c) turning off all logging and/or d) writing the CDRs to a ramdisk to see the new usage. AND.. as said before.. calls aren't usually 4 seconds. "good" traffic is on average 180+ seconds. -Avi On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Henry Huang <red.rain.seven@gmail.com>wrote:
Avi
So are you saying that using mod_json for mod_cdr_csv can reduce the cpu load comparing to using xml_cdr? I knew it has to do with writing CDR when tearing down the channels and I thought it was inevitable.
Thanks,
Henry
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Avi Marcus <avi@avimarcus.net> wrote:
So have you tried writing with the smaller mod_json or even smaller mod_cdr_csv with your own small template? Or having mod_xml_cdr / mod_json_cdr POST the CDRs to another machine to process?
-Avi
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Hanie Maghsoudy <h.maghsoudy@gmail.com>wrote:
Yeah, I believe so, since when calls are establishing the cpu load is not a problem.
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Henry Huang <red.rain.seven@gmail.com>wrote:
From my experience playing with different CPS values. The CPU spike is usually caused by the 'tearing down' process. If you increase the call duration, you will be able to see CPU spikes when channels times out and starting to tear down.
Henry
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Hanie Maghsoudy <h.maghsoudy@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi all,
I searched for FreeSwitch call capacity, but most of the results wasn't new. So, I wanna ask if anybody has either tested FreeSwitch's performance recently, or got a dramatic result in real environment?
I tested call quality on this machine:
Virtual FreeSwitch server OS: CentOS release 6.2 - x86_64 CPU: 8 processor - Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5670 @ 2.93GHz Memory: 8 G
After receiving incoming calls, FreeSwitch routed them to another sip server, without transcoding. The other server transmitted calls by playing an audio file. Meanwhile, I called an extension in FreeSwitch to test the call quality.
The result was like this:
1000 Concurrent calls Call duration: 160s Call rate: 6 cps (just creating channels) Max used Memory: 1416M Max CPU load: 0.24 Max Network throughput (recv/send): 6711k/80k Quality: Good
This test was taken before tearing down the channels.
Then, I took another test to estimate calls per second, and it wasn't what I was expected!
150 Concurrent calls Call duration: 4s Call rate: 30 cps (creating and tearing down) Max used Memory: 1293M Max CPU load: 4.50 Max Network throughput (recv/send): 828k/60k Quality: Average
And when I increase call rate to 50 cps:
1000 Concurrent calls Call duration: 4s Call rate: 50 cps (creating and tearing down) Max used Memory: 1730M Max CPU load: *29.9* Max Network throughput (recv/send): 1367k/202k Quality: Bad
Why call per second is such a big problem? Did anyone get a better result on this?
Thanks, Hanie
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
Hi. Yes, I'm using mod_xml_cdr. So, I'll try real hardware server, older version of CentOS, and modify CDR modes to test again with more realistic ACD. Thank you all. On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Avi Marcus <avi@avimarcus.net> wrote:
I just know the actual data size of mod_json_cdr is smaller than mod_xml_cdr... are you sure it's the CDR generation time and not the cpu usage of writing it to disk? Try a) mod_cdr_csv instead, b) mod_json_cdr instead, c) turning off all logging and/or d) writing the CDRs to a ramdisk to see the new usage.
AND.. as said before.. calls aren't usually 4 seconds. "good" traffic is on average 180+ seconds.
-Avi
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Henry Huang <red.rain.seven@gmail.com>wrote:
Avi
So are you saying that using mod_json for mod_cdr_csv can reduce the cpu load comparing to using xml_cdr? I knew it has to do with writing CDR when tearing down the channels and I thought it was inevitable.
Thanks,
Henry
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Avi Marcus <avi@avimarcus.net> wrote:
So have you tried writing with the smaller mod_json or even smaller mod_cdr_csv with your own small template? Or having mod_xml_cdr / mod_json_cdr POST the CDRs to another machine to process?
-Avi
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Hanie Maghsoudy <h.maghsoudy@gmail.com>wrote:
Yeah, I believe so, since when calls are establishing the cpu load is not a problem.
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Henry Huang <red.rain.seven@gmail.com>wrote:
From my experience playing with different CPS values. The CPU spike is usually caused by the 'tearing down' process. If you increase the call duration, you will be able to see CPU spikes when channels times out and starting to tear down.
Henry
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Hanie Maghsoudy < h.maghsoudy@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I searched for FreeSwitch call capacity, but most of the results wasn't new. So, I wanna ask if anybody has either tested FreeSwitch's performance recently, or got a dramatic result in real environment?
I tested call quality on this machine:
Virtual FreeSwitch server OS: CentOS release 6.2 - x86_64 CPU: 8 processor - Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5670 @ 2.93GHz Memory: 8 G
After receiving incoming calls, FreeSwitch routed them to another sip server, without transcoding. The other server transmitted calls by playing an audio file. Meanwhile, I called an extension in FreeSwitch to test the call quality.
The result was like this:
1000 Concurrent calls Call duration: 160s Call rate: 6 cps (just creating channels) Max used Memory: 1416M Max CPU load: 0.24 Max Network throughput (recv/send): 6711k/80k Quality: Good
This test was taken before tearing down the channels.
Then, I took another test to estimate calls per second, and it wasn't what I was expected!
150 Concurrent calls Call duration: 4s Call rate: 30 cps (creating and tearing down) Max used Memory: 1293M Max CPU load: 4.50 Max Network throughput (recv/send): 828k/60k Quality: Average
And when I increase call rate to 50 cps:
1000 Concurrent calls Call duration: 4s Call rate: 50 cps (creating and tearing down) Max used Memory: 1730M Max CPU load: *29.9* Max Network throughput (recv/send): 1367k/202k Quality: Bad
Why call per second is such a big problem? Did anyone get a better result on this?
Thanks, Hanie
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
On 07/08/2012 11:48 AM, Hanie Maghsoudy wrote:
Hi. Yes, I'm using mod_xml_cdr. So, I'll try real hardware server, older version of CentOS, and modify CDR modes to test again with more realistic ACD. Thank you all.
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Avi Marcus <avi@avimarcus.net <mailto:avi@avimarcus.net>> wrote:
I just know the actual data size of mod_json_cdr is smaller than mod_xml_cdr... are you sure it's the CDR generation time and not the cpu usage of writing it to disk? Try a) mod_cdr_csv instead, b) mod_json_cdr instead, c) turning off all logging and/or d) writing the CDRs to a ramdisk to see the new usage.
AND.. as said before.. calls aren't usually 4 seconds. "good" traffic is on average 180+ seconds.
Good is highly variable. There used to be lots of good traffic that averaged 4s in the days when paging was big business. There is still plenty of call centre work where the average is 30s. Even proper conversations can average considerably less than 180s. You REALLY have to look at the application. Steve
Our average call is 60s. Quite a lot of short ones due to people hitting voicemail and hanging up immediately. On 8 Jul 2012, at 05:16, Steve Underwood wrote:
On 07/08/2012 11:48 AM, Hanie Maghsoudy wrote:
Hi. Yes, I'm using mod_xml_cdr. So, I'll try real hardware server, older version of CentOS, and modify CDR modes to test again with more realistic ACD. Thank you all.
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Avi Marcus <avi@avimarcus.net <mailto:avi@avimarcus.net>> wrote:
I just know the actual data size of mod_json_cdr is smaller than mod_xml_cdr... are you sure it's the CDR generation time and not the cpu usage of writing it to disk? Try a) mod_cdr_csv instead, b) mod_json_cdr instead, c) turning off all logging and/or d) writing the CDRs to a ramdisk to see the new usage.
AND.. as said before.. calls aren't usually 4 seconds. "good" traffic is on average 180+ seconds.
Good is highly variable. There used to be lots of good traffic that averaged 4s in the days when paging was big business. There is still plenty of call centre work where the average is 30s. Even proper conversations can average considerably less than 180s. You REALLY have to look at the application.
Steve
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
participants (6)
-
Alexander Lake
-
Avi Marcus
-
Hanie Maghsoudy
-
Henry Huang
-
Peter Olsson
-
Steve Underwood