Question regarding running FreeSWITCH with high priority enabled.
I have 2 identical Dell PowerEdge 1950 servers running FreeSWITCH Version 1.0.4 (exported) with only one thing difference which is the first one is running with -hp enabled; however, I have noticed that the one with -hp option consumed double in memory usage than the other one. I wonder whether anyone can explain why. Thank you. Please see below: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- top - 01:01:42 up 53 days, 2:45, 1 user, load average: 0.22, 0.28, 0.29 Tasks: 143 total, 1 running, 142 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 0.9%us, 0.2%sy, 0.0%ni, 96.4%id, 2.5%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Mem: 8174164k total, 7550092k used, 624072k free, 187568k buffers Swap: 10223608k total, 0k used, 10223608k free, 5417524k cached PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 30750 root -2 -10 1823m 1.5g 20m S 8.6 19.8 1153:40 freeswitch 4418 session(s) 14/100 root 30750 2.1 19.9 1879252 1634300 ? S<Ll Oct30 1153:50 /usr/local/freeswitch/bin/freeswitch -nc -hp -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- top - 01:01:58 up 53 days, 2:45, 1 user, load average: 0.43, 0.51, 0.49 Tasks: 143 total, 1 running, 142 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 0.9%us, 0.3%sy, 0.0%ni, 96.4%id, 2.4%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Mem: 8174164k total, 6751260k used, 1422904k free, 203948k buffers Swap: 10223608k total, 0k used, 10223608k free, 5432632k cached PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 7147 root 15 0 1961m 755m 5164 S 9.0 9.5 1452:26 freeswitch 4478 session(s) 14/100 root 7147 1.9 9.4 2009392 774848 ? Sl Oct15 1452:37 /usr/local/freeswitch/bin/freeswitch -nc
One thing that I forgot to mention, these 2 FreeSWITCH servers are getting calls with load balancing from another switch. Thus, the traffic type are pretty much identical and both FSs have exactly the same on configuration. Any suggestion would be appreciated. Thank you. ________________________________ From: DJB <djbinter@yahoo.com> To: FREESWITCH-USERS MAILING LIST <freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org> Sent: Sun, December 6, 2009 5:17:14 PM Subject: [Freeswitch-users] Question regarding running FreeSWITCH with high priority enabled. I have 2 identical Dell PowerEdge 1950 servers running FreeSWITCH Version 1.0.4 (exported) with only one thing difference which is the first one is running with -hp enabled; however, I have noticed that the one with -hp option consumed double in memory usage than the other one. I wonder whether anyone can explain why. Thank you. Please see below: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- top - 01:01:42 up 53 days, 2:45, 1 user, load average: 0.22, 0.28, 0.29 Tasks: 143 total, 1 running, 142 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 0.9%us, 0.2%sy, 0.0%ni, 96.4%id, 2.5%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Mem: 8174164k total, 7550092k used, 624072k free, 187568k buffers Swap: 10223608k total, 0k used, 10223608k free, 5417524k cached PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 30750 root -2 -10 1823m 1.5g 20m S 8.6 19.8 1153:40 freeswitch 4418 session(s) 14/100 root 30750 2.1 19.9 1879252 1634300 ? S<Ll Oct30 1153:50 /usr/local/freeswitch/bin/freeswitch -nc -hp -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- top - 01:01:58 up 53 days, 2:45, 1 user, load average: 0.43, 0.51, 0.49 Tasks: 143 total, 1 running, 142 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 0.9%us, 0.3%sy, 0.0%ni, 96.4%id, 2.4%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Mem: 8174164k total, 6751260k used, 1422904k free, 203948k buffers Swap: 10223608k total, 0k used, 10223608k free, 5432632k cached PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 7147 root 15 0 1961m 755m 5164 S 9.0 9.5 1452:26 freeswitch 4478 session(s) 14/100 root 7147 1.9 9.4 2009392 774848 ? Sl Oct15 1452:37 /usr/local/freeswitch/bin/freeswitch -nc
One of the properties of -hp is to enable memlockall() which means disable swapping. This causes all memory used by FS to be resident permanently and is much more costly in memory usage. -hp also uses a RR scheduler runs the process at a less nice level and increases a few other process ulimits. This mode is designed for high end usage and uses more resources when idle with a large payout when scaling to many calls. On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 10:42 AM, DJB <djbinter@yahoo.com> wrote:
One thing that I forgot to mention, these 2 FreeSWITCH servers are getting calls with load balancing from another switch. Thus, the traffic type are pretty much identical and both FSs have exactly the same on configuration. Any suggestion would be appreciated. Thank you.
------------------------------ *From:* DJB <djbinter@yahoo.com> *To:* FREESWITCH-USERS MAILING LIST <freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org
*Sent:* Sun, December 6, 2009 5:17:14 PM *Subject:* [Freeswitch-users] Question regarding running FreeSWITCH with high priority enabled.
I have 2 identical Dell PowerEdge 1950 servers running FreeSWITCH Version 1.0.4 (exported) with only one thing difference which is the first one is running with -hp enabled; however, I have noticed that the one with -hp option consumed double in memory usage than the other one.
I wonder whether anyone can explain why. Thank you.
Please see below:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- top - 01:01:42 up 53 days, 2:45, 1 user, load average: 0.22, 0.28, 0.29 Tasks: 143 total, 1 running, 142 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 0.9%us, 0.2%sy, 0.0%ni, 96.4%id, 2.5%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Mem: 8174164k total, 7550092k used, 624072k free, 187568k buffers Swap: 10223608k total, 0k used, 10223608k free, 5417524k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
30750 root -2 -10 1823m 1.5g 20m S 8.6 19.8 1153:40 freeswitch
4418 session(s) 14/100
root 30750 2.1 *19.9* 1879252 1634300 ? S<Ll Oct30 1153:50 /usr/local/freeswitch/bin/freeswitch -nc -hp
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- top - 01:01:58 up 53 days, 2:45, 1 user, load average: 0.43, 0.51, 0.49 Tasks: 143 total, 1 running, 142 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 0.9%us, 0.3%sy, 0.0%ni, 96.4%id, 2.4%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Mem: 8174164k total, 6751260k used, 1422904k free, 203948k buffers Swap: 10223608k total, 0k used, 10223608k free, 5432632k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
7147 root 15 0 1961m 755m 5164 S 9.0 9.5 1452:26 freeswitch
4478 session(s) 14/100
root 7147 1.9 *9.4* 2009392 774848 ? Sl Oct15 1452:37 /usr/local/freeswitch/bin/freeswitch -nc
_______________________________________________ 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 <MSN%3Aanthony_minessale@hotmail.com> GTALK/JABBER/PAYPAL:anthony.minessale@gmail.com<PAYPAL%3Aanthony.minessale@gmail.com> IRC: irc.freenode.net #freeswitch FreeSWITCH Developer Conference sip:888@conference.freeswitch.org <sip%3A888@conference.freeswitch.org> iax:guest@conference.freeswitch.org/888 googletalk:conf+888@conference.freeswitch.org<googletalk%3Aconf%2B888@conference.freeswitch.org> pstn:213-799-1400
Anthony, Thank you for your clear response. Based on your recommendation, if I want to route more calls to the first server, should I take off "-hp", or it's better to run with it. We are running FS for pass-thru traffic with signaling only. ________________________________ From: Anthony Minessale <anthony.minessale@gmail.com> To: freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org Sent: Mon, December 7, 2009 8:56:14 AM Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] Question regarding running FreeSWITCH with high priority enabled. One of the properties of -hp is to enable memlockall() which means disable swapping. This causes all memory used by FS to be resident permanently and is much more costly in memory usage. -hp also uses a RR scheduler runs the process at a less nice level and increases a few other process ulimits. This mode is designed for high end usage and uses more resources when idle with a large payout when scaling to many calls. On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 10:42 AM, DJB <djbinter@yahoo.com> wrote: One thing that I forgot to mention, these 2 FreeSWITCH servers are getting calls with load balancing from another switch. Thus, the traffic type are pretty much identical and both FSs have exactly the same on configuration. Any suggestion would be appreciated. Thank you.
________________________________ From: DJB <djbinter@yahoo.com>
To: FREESWITCH-USERS MAILING LIST <freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org> Sent: Sun, December 6, 2009 5:17:14 PM Subject: [Freeswitch-users] Question regarding running FreeSWITCH with high priority enabled.
I have 2 identical Dell PowerEdge 1950 servers running FreeSWITCH Version 1.0.4 (exported) with only one thing difference which is the first one is running with -hp enabled; however, I have noticed that the one with -hp option consumed double in memory usage than the other one.
I wonder whether anyone can explain why. Thank you.
Please see below:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- top - 01:01:42 up 53 days, 2:45, 1 user, load average: 0.22, 0.28, 0.29 Tasks: 143 total, 1 running, 142 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 0.9%us, 0.2%sy, 0.0%ni, 96.4%id, 2.5%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Mem: 8174164k total, 7550092k used, 624072k free, 187568k buffers Swap: 10223608k total, 0k used, 10223608k free, 5417524k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 30750 root -2 -10 1823m 1.5g 20m S 8.6 19.8 1153:40 freeswitch
4418 session(s) 14/100
root 30750 2.1 19.9 1879252 1634300 ? S<Ll Oct30 1153:50 /usr/local/freeswitch/bin/freeswitch -nc -hp
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
top - 01:01:58 up 53 days, 2:45, 1 user, load average: 0.43, 0.51, 0.49 Tasks: 143 total, 1 running, 142 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 0.9%us, 0.3%sy, 0.0%ni, 96.4%id, 2.4%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Mem: 8174164k total, 6751260k used, 1422904k free, 203948k buffers Swap: 10223608k total, 0k used, 10223608k free, 5432632k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
7147 root 15 0 1961m 755m 5164 S 9.0 9.5 1452:26 freeswitch
4478 session(s) 14/100
root 7147 1.9 9.4 2009392 774848 ? Sl Oct15 1452:37 /usr/local/freeswitch/bin/freeswitch -nc
_______________________________________________
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 iax:guest@conference.freeswitch.org/888 googletalk:conf+888@conference.freeswitch.org pstn:213-799-1400
maybe you can try both ways and see if there is a significant difference? I think -hp would help more if you were doing media than if you were not but that does not mean it could not still help performance but really the extra performance would only show up once you had consumed all the resources the box had to offer without -hp enabled in most cases. On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:12 AM, DJB <djbinter@yahoo.com> wrote:
Anthony,
Thank you for your clear response. Based on your recommendation, if I want to route more calls to the first server, should I take off "-hp", or it's better to run with it. We are running FS for pass-thru traffic with signaling only.
------------------------------ *From:* Anthony Minessale <anthony.minessale@gmail.com> *To:* freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org *Sent:* Mon, December 7, 2009 8:56:14 AM *Subject:* Re: [Freeswitch-users] Question regarding running FreeSWITCH with high priority enabled.
One of the properties of -hp is to enable memlockall() which means disable swapping. This causes all memory used by FS to be resident permanently and is much more costly in memory usage. -hp also uses a RR scheduler runs the process at a less nice level and increases a few other process ulimits. This mode is designed for high end usage and uses more resources when idle with a large payout when scaling to many calls.
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 10:42 AM, DJB <djbinter@yahoo.com> wrote:
One thing that I forgot to mention, these 2 FreeSWITCH servers are getting calls with load balancing from another switch. Thus, the traffic type are pretty much identical and both FSs have exactly the same on configuration. Any suggestion would be appreciated. Thank you.
------------------------------ *From:* DJB <djbinter@yahoo.com> *To:* FREESWITCH-USERS MAILING LIST < freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org> *Sent:* Sun, December 6, 2009 5:17:14 PM *Subject:* [Freeswitch-users] Question regarding running FreeSWITCH with high priority enabled.
I have 2 identical Dell PowerEdge 1950 servers running FreeSWITCH Version 1.0.4 (exported) with only one thing difference which is the first one is running with -hp enabled; however, I have noticed that the one with -hp option consumed double in memory usage than the other one.
I wonder whether anyone can explain why. Thank you.
Please see below:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- top - 01:01:42 up 53 days, 2:45, 1 user, load average: 0.22, 0.28, 0.29 Tasks: 143 total, 1 running, 142 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 0.9%us, 0.2%sy, 0.0%ni, 96.4%id, 2.5%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Mem: 8174164k total, 7550092k used, 624072k free, 187568k buffers Swap: 10223608k total, 0k used, 10223608k free, 5417524k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
30750 root -2 -10 1823m 1.5g 20m S 8.6 19.8 1153:40 freeswitch
4418 session(s) 14/100
root 30750 2.1 *19.9* 1879252 1634300 ? S<Ll Oct30 1153:50 /usr/local/freeswitch/bin/freeswitch -nc -hp
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- top - 01:01:58 up 53 days, 2:45, 1 user, load average: 0.43, 0.51, 0.49 Tasks: 143 total, 1 running, 142 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 0.9%us, 0.3%sy, 0.0%ni, 96.4%id, 2.4%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Mem: 8174164k total, 6751260k used, 1422904k free, 203948k buffers Swap: 10223608k total, 0k used, 10223608k free, 5432632k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
7147 root 15 0 1961m 755m 5164 S 9.0 9.5 1452:26 freeswitch
4478 session(s) 14/100
root 7147 1.9 *9.4* 2009392 774848 ? Sl Oct15 1452:37 /usr/local/freeswitch/bin/freeswitch -nc
_______________________________________________ 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 <MSN%3Aanthony_minessale@hotmail.com> GTALK/JABBER/PAYPAL:anthony.minessale@gmail.com<PAYPAL%3Aanthony.minessale@gmail.com> IRC: irc.freenode.net #freeswitch
FreeSWITCH Developer Conference sip:888@conference.freeswitch.org <sip%3A888@conference.freeswitch.org> iax:guest@conference.freeswitch.org/888 googletalk:conf+888@conference.freeswitch.org<googletalk%3Aconf%2B888@conference.freeswitch.org> pstn:213-799-1400
_______________________________________________ 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 <MSN%3Aanthony_minessale@hotmail.com> GTALK/JABBER/PAYPAL:anthony.minessale@gmail.com<PAYPAL%3Aanthony.minessale@gmail.com> IRC: irc.freenode.net #freeswitch FreeSWITCH Developer Conference sip:888@conference.freeswitch.org <sip%3A888@conference.freeswitch.org> iax:guest@conference.freeswitch.org/888 googletalk:conf+888@conference.freeswitch.org<googletalk%3Aconf%2B888@conference.freeswitch.org> pstn:213-799-1400
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:42 AM, DJB <djbinter@yahoo.com> wrote:
One thing that I forgot to mention, these 2 FreeSWITCH servers are getting calls with load balancing from another switch. Thus, the traffic type are pretty much identical and both FSs have exactly the same on configuration. Any suggestion would be appreciated. Thank you.
If you could explain how you are doing the load balancing it would be really helpful to me. I am trying to do the same thing.
Load sharing feature is coming off our Lucent Telica switch. ________________________________ From: Tim Uckun <timuckun@gmail.com> To: freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org Sent: Wed, December 9, 2009 2:26:41 AM Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] Question regarding running FreeSWITCH with high priority enabled. On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:42 AM, DJB <djbinter@yahoo.com> wrote:
One thing that I forgot to mention, these 2 FreeSWITCH servers are getting calls with load balancing from another switch. Thus, the traffic type are pretty much identical and both FSs have exactly the same on configuration. Any suggestion would be appreciated. Thank you.
If you could explain how you are doing the load balancing it would be really helpful to me. I am trying to do the same thing. _______________________________________________ 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 (3)
-
Anthony Minessale
-
DJB
-
Tim Uckun