Freeswitch performance as a redirecting server
Hello, i'm trying to use freeswitch as a redirecting server meaning FS has to receive an INVITE and according to some rules it will redirect calls to other destinations. CALLING_USER FREESWITCH SOMEWHERE INVITE -------------------------------> <------------------------------ 100 Trying <------------------------------ 302 Moved Temporary ACK -------------------------------> INVITE---------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Well, wverything works well except i have perfromance issues .... on my HW FS cannot do more than 40 CPS (INVITE answered by 302 Moved Temporary). When i increase the rate, FS starts delaying 302 response. Right at 50 CPS i see "calls" being build up in FS and the delay begining to grow. When i observe the machine, load average is almost nothing (load average: 1.41, 0.61, 0.60) CPU never goes to 100%, and i see only one thread taking most load... all others are just sitting there with 1-5 % CPU time. This looks to me as FS handles 302 messages in a single thread?!?! tculjaga@FS:/usr/local/freeswitch/conf/dialplan$ top -H top - 10:41:37 up 167 days, 20:42, 3 users, load average: 1.41, 0.61, 0.60 Tasks: 83 total, 2 running, 81 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 25.3%us, 1.5%sy, 0.0%ni, 30.3%id, 42.7%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.2%si, 0.0%st Mem: 2074520k total, 571244k used, 1503276k free, 259604k buffers Swap: 2650684k total, 3020k used, 2647664k free, 153868k cached PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 4814 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 38 1.0 3:10.29 freeswitch 4800 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 6 1.0 0:08.26 freeswitch 4798 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 R 5 1.0 0:24.46 freeswitch 4787 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 2 1.0 0:11.24 freeswitch 4794 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:11.42 freeswitch 4803 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:11.74 freeswitch 4788 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:02.96 freeswitch 4804 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:01.64 freeswitch 4807 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:01.68 freeswitch 4811 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:02.50 freeswitch cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 15 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 5140 @ 2.33GHz stepping : 6 cpu MHz : 2333.560 cache size : 4096 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 2 core id : 0 cpu cores : 2 apicid : 0 initial apicid : 0 fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug : no coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 10 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr dca lahf_lm bogomips : 4670.78 clflush size : 64 power management: processor : 1 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 15 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 5140 @ 2.33GHz stepping : 6 cpu MHz : 2333.560 cache size : 4096 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 2 core id : 1 cpu cores : 2 apicid : 1 initial apicid : 1 fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug : no coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 10 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr dca lahf_lm bogomips : 4666.82 clflush size : 64 power management: uname -a Linux l01sipindir1 2.6.26-1-686 #1 SMP Sat Jan 10 18:29:31 UTC 2009 i686 GNU/Linux Of course, i've tuned the machine up ulimit -c unlimited ulimit -d unlimited ulimit -f unlimited ulimit -i unlimited ulimit -n 999999 ulimit -q unlimited ulimit -u unlimited ulimit -v unlimited ulimit -x unlimited ulimit -s 240 ulimit -l unlimited ulimit -a Started FS with minimum modules but still 40 CPS seems to be the limit. So, is there any way to improve performance? Tihomir.
Maybe your load comes from disk access? Try putting the sql and log directories on a ramdisk. OTH, -giovanni On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Tihomir Culjaga<tculjaga@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
i'm trying to use freeswitch as a redirecting server meaning FS has to receive an INVITE and according to some rules it will redirect calls to other destinations.
CALLING_USER FREESWITCH SOMEWHERE
INVITE -------------------------------> <------------------------------ 100 Trying <------------------------------ 302 Moved Temporary ACK -------------------------------> INVITE--------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Well, wverything works well except i have perfromance issues .... on my HW FS cannot do more than 40 CPS (INVITE answered by 302 Moved Temporary). When i increase the rate, FS starts delaying 302 response. Right at 50 CPS i see "calls" being build up in FS and the delay begining to grow.
When i observe the machine, load average is almost nothing (load average: 1.41, 0.61, 0.60) CPU never goes to 100%, and i see only one thread taking most load... all others are just sitting there with 1-5 % CPU time. This looks to me as FS handles 302 messages in a single thread?!?!
tculjaga@FS:/usr/local/freeswitch/conf/dialplan$ top -H
top - 10:41:37 up 167 days, 20:42, 3 users, load average: 1.41, 0.61, 0.60 Tasks: 83 total, 2 running, 81 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 25.3%us, 1.5%sy, 0.0%ni, 30.3%id, 42.7%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.2%si, 0.0%st Mem: 2074520k total, 571244k used, 1503276k free, 259604k buffers Swap: 2650684k total, 3020k used, 2647664k free, 153868k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 4814 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 38 1.0 3:10.29 freeswitch 4800 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 6 1.0 0:08.26 freeswitch 4798 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 R 5 1.0 0:24.46 freeswitch 4787 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 2 1.0 0:11.24 freeswitch 4794 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:11.42 freeswitch 4803 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:11.74 freeswitch 4788 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:02.96 freeswitch 4804 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:01.64 freeswitch 4807 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:01.68 freeswitch 4811 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:02.50 freeswitch
cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 15 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 5140 @ 2.33GHz stepping : 6 cpu MHz : 2333.560 cache size : 4096 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 2 core id : 0 cpu cores : 2 apicid : 0 initial apicid : 0 fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug : no coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 10 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr dca lahf_lm bogomips : 4670.78 clflush size : 64 power management:
processor : 1 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 15 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 5140 @ 2.33GHz stepping : 6 cpu MHz : 2333.560 cache size : 4096 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 2 core id : 1 cpu cores : 2 apicid : 1 initial apicid : 1 fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug : no coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 10 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr dca lahf_lm bogomips : 4666.82 clflush size : 64 power management:
uname -a Linux l01sipindir1 2.6.26-1-686 #1 SMP Sat Jan 10 18:29:31 UTC 2009 i686 GNU/Linux
Of course, i've tuned the machine up
ulimit -c unlimited ulimit -d unlimited ulimit -f unlimited ulimit -i unlimited ulimit -n 999999 ulimit -q unlimited ulimit -u unlimited ulimit -v unlimited ulimit -x unlimited ulimit -s 240 ulimit -l unlimited ulimit -a
Started FS with minimum modules but still 40 CPS seems to be the limit.
So, is there any way to improve performance?
Tihomir.
_______________________________________________ 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
Hey Giovanni, thanks for the tip... indeed the db files were heavily used regardless if i started freeswitch with nosql option (freeswitch -nosql)... FS was not writing anything into that files ... instead it was just accessing it.... This behaviour leads to a waste of 40% CPU time... waiting for other processes (mainly disk access) to finish!!! I moved freeswitch/db/ to a ramdisk and the performance got a boost to 140 CPS with a CPU load of 80%. I was keeping the machine for a while (20 - 30 minutes) on that rate when i sow CPU suddenly went to 100% and FS becoming irresponsive :). What can be wrong? What are the limits in CPU usage (50%, 60%, 70%, 80%...) we should not cross? What fine tuning do we need in order to asure a long high load run? Also, I'm running 32-bit OS (debian 5) on a 64 bit CPU... does it have sense to move my OS to 64 bit? ... will FS gain more preformance ?... I mean will FS perofomr drastically better 20%+ ? Tihomir. On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Giovanni Maruzzelli <gmaruzz@celliax.org>wrote:
Maybe your load comes from disk access?
Try putting the sql and log directories on a ramdisk.
OTH,
-giovanni
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Tihomir Culjaga<tculjaga@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
i'm trying to use freeswitch as a redirecting server meaning FS has to receive an INVITE and according to some rules it will redirect calls to other destinations.
CALLING_USER FREESWITCH SOMEWHERE
INVITE -------------------------------> <------------------------------ 100 Trying <------------------------------ 302 Moved Temporary ACK ------------------------------->
INVITE--------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Well, wverything works well except i have perfromance issues .... on my
HW
FS cannot do more than 40 CPS (INVITE answered by 302 Moved Temporary). When i increase the rate, FS starts delaying 302 response. Right at 50 CPS i see "calls" being build up in FS and the delay begining to grow.
When i observe the machine, load average is almost nothing (load average: 1.41, 0.61, 0.60) CPU never goes to 100%, and i see only one thread taking most load... all others are just sitting there with 1-5 % CPU time. This looks to me as FS handles 302 messages in a single thread?!?!
tculjaga@FS:/usr/local/freeswitch/conf/dialplan$ top -H
top - 10:41:37 up 167 days, 20:42, 3 users, load average: 1.41, 0.61, 0.60 Tasks: 83 total, 2 running, 81 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 25.3%us, 1.5%sy, 0.0%ni, 30.3%id, 42.7%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.2%si, 0.0%st Mem: 2074520k total, 571244k used, 1503276k free, 259604k buffers Swap: 2650684k total, 3020k used, 2647664k free, 153868k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 4814 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 38 1.0 3:10.29 freeswitch 4800 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 6 1.0 0:08.26 freeswitch 4798 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 R 5 1.0 0:24.46 freeswitch 4787 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 2 1.0 0:11.24 freeswitch 4794 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:11.42 freeswitch 4803 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:11.74 freeswitch 4788 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:02.96 freeswitch 4804 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:01.64 freeswitch 4807 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:01.68 freeswitch 4811 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:02.50 freeswitch
cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 15 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 5140 @ 2.33GHz stepping : 6 cpu MHz : 2333.560 cache size : 4096 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 2 core id : 0 cpu cores : 2 apicid : 0 initial apicid : 0 fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug : no coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 10 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr dca lahf_lm bogomips : 4670.78 clflush size : 64 power management:
processor : 1 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 15 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 5140 @ 2.33GHz stepping : 6 cpu MHz : 2333.560 cache size : 4096 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 2 core id : 1 cpu cores : 2 apicid : 1 initial apicid : 1 fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug : no coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 10 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr dca lahf_lm bogomips : 4666.82 clflush size : 64 power management:
uname -a Linux l01sipindir1 2.6.26-1-686 #1 SMP Sat Jan 10 18:29:31 UTC 2009 i686 GNU/Linux
Of course, i've tuned the machine up
ulimit -c unlimited ulimit -d unlimited ulimit -f unlimited ulimit -i unlimited ulimit -n 999999 ulimit -q unlimited ulimit -u unlimited ulimit -v unlimited ulimit -x unlimited ulimit -s 240 ulimit -l unlimited ulimit -a
Started FS with minimum modules but still 40 CPS seems to be the limit.
So, is there any way to improve performance?
Tihomir.
_______________________________________________ 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
Everytime someone asks this , the resounding answer is use a 64bit os.. No question Jay On 25/08/2009, at 23:19, Tihomir Culjaga <tculjaga@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Giovanni,
thanks for the tip... indeed the db files were heavily used regardless if i started freeswitch with nosql option (freeswitch - nosql)... FS was not writing anything into that files ... instead it was just accessing it.... This behaviour leads to a waste of 40% CPU time... waiting for other processes (mainly disk access) to finish!!!
I moved freeswitch/db/ to a ramdisk and the performance got a boost to 140 CPS with a CPU load of 80%. I was keeping the machine for a while (20 - 30 minutes) on that rate when i sow CPU suddenly went to 100% and FS becoming irresponsive :).
What can be wrong? What are the limits in CPU usage (50%, 60%, 70%, 80%...) we should not cross? What fine tuning do we need in order to asure a long high load run?
Also, I'm running 32-bit OS (debian 5) on a 64 bit CPU... does it have sense to move my OS to 64 bit? ... will FS gain more preformance ?... I mean will FS perofomr drastically better 20%+ ?
Tihomir.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Giovanni Maruzzelli <gmaruzz@celliax.org
wrote: Maybe your load comes from disk access?
Try putting the sql and log directories on a ramdisk.
OTH,
-giovanni
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Tihomir Culjaga<tculjaga@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
i'm trying to use freeswitch as a redirecting server meaning FS has to receive an INVITE and according to some rules it will redirect calls to other destinations.
CALLING_USER FREESWITCH SOMEWHERE
INVITE -------------------------------> <------------------------------ 100 Trying <------------------------------ 302 Moved Temporary ACK ------------------------------->
INVITE- --- --- --- --- -------------------------------------------------------------------->
Well, wverything works well except i have perfromance issues ....
on my HW
FS cannot do more than 40 CPS (INVITE answered by 302 Moved Temporary). When i increase the rate, FS starts delaying 302 response. Right at 50 CPS i see "calls" being build up in FS and the delay begining to grow.
When i observe the machine, load average is almost nothing (load average: 1.41, 0.61, 0.60) CPU never goes to 100%, and i see only one thread taking most load... all others are just sitting there with 1-5 % CPU time. This looks to me as FS handles 302 messages in a single thread?!?!
tculjaga@FS:/usr/local/freeswitch/conf/dialplan$ top -H
top - 10:41:37 up 167 days, 20:42, 3 users, load average: 1.41, 0.61, 0.60 Tasks: 83 total, 2 running, 81 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 25.3%us, 1.5%sy, 0.0%ni, 30.3%id, 42.7%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.2%si, 0.0%st Mem: 2074520k total, 571244k used, 1503276k free, 259604k buffers Swap: 2650684k total, 3020k used, 2647664k free, 153868k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 4814 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 38 1.0 3:10.29 freeswitch 4800 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 6 1.0 0:08.26 freeswitch 4798 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 R 5 1.0 0:24.46 freeswitch 4787 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 2 1.0 0:11.24 freeswitch 4794 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:11.42 freeswitch 4803 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:11.74 freeswitch 4788 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:02.96 freeswitch 4804 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:01.64 freeswitch 4807 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:01.68 freeswitch 4811 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:02.50 freeswitch
cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 15 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 5140 @ 2.33GHz stepping : 6 cpu MHz : 2333.560 cache size : 4096 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 2 core id : 0 cpu cores : 2 apicid : 0 initial apicid : 0 fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug : no coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 10 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr dca lahf_lm bogomips : 4670.78 clflush size : 64 power management:
processor : 1 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 15 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 5140 @ 2.33GHz stepping : 6 cpu MHz : 2333.560 cache size : 4096 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 2 core id : 1 cpu cores : 2 apicid : 1 initial apicid : 1 fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug : no coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 10 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr dca lahf_lm bogomips : 4666.82 clflush size : 64 power management:
uname -a Linux l01sipindir1 2.6.26-1-686 #1 SMP Sat Jan 10 18:29:31 UTC 2009 i686 GNU/Linux
Of course, i've tuned the machine up
ulimit -c unlimited ulimit -d unlimited ulimit -f unlimited ulimit -i unlimited ulimit -n 999999 ulimit -q unlimited ulimit -u unlimited ulimit -v unlimited ulimit -x unlimited ulimit -s 240 ulimit -l unlimited ulimit -a
Started FS with minimum modules but still 40 CPS seems to be the limit.
So, is there any way to improve performance?
Tihomir.
_______________________________________________ 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
thanks for the feedback... this is something im going to do tomorrow... what about other things? On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Jay Binks <jaybinks@gmail.com> wrote:
Everytime someone asks this , the resounding answer is use a 64bit os..
No question
Jay
On 25/08/2009, at 23:19, Tihomir Culjaga <tculjaga@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Giovanni,
thanks for the tip... indeed the db files were heavily used regardless if i started freeswitch with nosql option (freeswitch -nosql)... FS was not writing anything into that files ... instead it was just accessing it.... This behaviour leads to a waste of 40% CPU time... waiting for other processes (mainly disk access) to finish!!!
I moved freeswitch/db/ to a ramdisk and the performance got a boost to 140 CPS with a CPU load of 80%. I was keeping the machine for a while (20 - 30 minutes) on that rate when i sow CPU suddenly went to 100% and FS becoming irresponsive :).
What can be wrong? What are the limits in CPU usage (50%, 60%, 70%, 80%...) we should not cross? What fine tuning do we need in order to asure a long high load run?
Also, I'm running 32-bit OS (debian 5) on a 64 bit CPU... does it have sense to move my OS to 64 bit? ... will FS gain more preformance ?... I mean will FS perofomr drastically better 20%+ ?
Tihomir.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Giovanni Maruzzelli <<gmaruzz@celliax.org> gmaruzz@celliax.org> wrote:
Maybe your load comes from disk access?
Try putting the sql and log directories on a ramdisk.
OTH,
-giovanni
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Tihomir Culjaga< <tculjaga@gmail.com> tculjaga@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
i'm trying to use freeswitch as a redirecting server meaning FS has to receive an INVITE and according to some rules it will redirect calls to other destinations.
CALLING_USER FREESWITCH SOMEWHERE
INVITE -------------------------------> <------------------------------ 100 Trying <------------------------------ 302 Moved Temporary ACK ------------------------------->
INVITE--------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Well, wverything works well except i have perfromance issues .... on my
HW
FS cannot do more than 40 CPS (INVITE answered by 302 Moved Temporary). When i increase the rate, FS starts delaying 302 response. Right at 50 CPS i see "calls" being build up in FS and the delay begining to grow.
When i observe the machine, load average is almost nothing (load average: 1.41, 0.61, 0.60) CPU never goes to 100%, and i see only one thread taking most load... all others are just sitting there with 1-5 % CPU time. This looks to me as FS handles 302 messages in a single thread?!?!
tculjaga@FS:/usr/local/freeswitch/conf/dialplan$ top -H
top - 10:41:37 up 167 days, 20:42, 3 users, load average: 1.41, 0.61, 0.60 Tasks: 83 total, 2 running, 81 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 25.3%us, 1.5%sy, 0.0%ni, 30.3%id, 42.7%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.2%si, 0.0%st Mem: 2074520k total, 571244k used, 1503276k free, 259604k buffers Swap: 2650684k total, 3020k used, 2647664k free, 153868k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 4814 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 38 1.0 3:10.29 freeswitch 4800 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 6 1.0 0:08.26 freeswitch 4798 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 R 5 1.0 0:24.46 freeswitch 4787 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 2 1.0 0:11.24 freeswitch 4794 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:11.42 freeswitch 4803 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:11.74 freeswitch 4788 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:02.96 freeswitch 4804 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:01.64 freeswitch 4807 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:01.68 freeswitch 4811 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:02.50 freeswitch
cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 15 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 5140 @ 2.33GHz stepping : 6 cpu MHz : 2333.560 cache size : 4096 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 2 core id : 0 cpu cores : 2 apicid : 0 initial apicid : 0 fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug : no coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 10 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr dca lahf_lm bogomips : 4670.78 clflush size : 64 power management:
processor : 1 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 15 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 5140 @ 2.33GHz stepping : 6 cpu MHz : 2333.560 cache size : 4096 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 2 core id : 1 cpu cores : 2 apicid : 1 initial apicid : 1 fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug : no coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 10 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr dca lahf_lm bogomips : 4666.82 clflush size : 64 power management:
uname -a Linux l01sipindir1 2.6.26-1-686 #1 SMP Sat Jan 10 18:29:31 UTC 2009 i686 GNU/Linux
Of course, i've tuned the machine up
ulimit -c unlimited ulimit -d unlimited ulimit -f unlimited ulimit -i unlimited ulimit -n 999999 ulimit -q unlimited ulimit -u unlimited ulimit -v unlimited ulimit -x unlimited ulimit -s 240 ulimit -l unlimited ulimit -a
Started FS with minimum modules but still 40 CPS seems to be the limit.
So, is there any way to improve performance?
Tihomir.
_______________________________________________ FreeSWITCH-users mailing list <FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org> FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org <http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users> http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:<http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users> http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users <http://www.freeswitch.org>http://www.freeswitch.org
_______________________________________________ FreeSWITCH-users mailing list <FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org> FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org <http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users> http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:<http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users> http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users <http://www.freeswitch.org>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
is a heavely multithreaded software, it benefits from number of CPUs (or cores), RAM, and heavy duty kernel features (found in 64bit kernels) put all accesses on ramdisk, leave out the modules you don't use... experiment, test, and find the best for your specific application/workload test not only with sipp, but with real load too (often they're very different) -gm On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Tihomir Culjaga<tculjaga@gmail.com> wrote:
thanks for the feedback... this is something im going to do tomorrow...
what about other things?
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Jay Binks <jaybinks@gmail.com> wrote:
Everytime someone asks this , the resounding answer is use a 64bit os.. No question Jay
On 25/08/2009, at 23:19, Tihomir Culjaga <tculjaga@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Giovanni,
thanks for the tip... indeed the db files were heavily used regardless if i started freeswitch with nosql option (freeswitch -nosql)... FS was not writing anything into that files ... instead it was just accessing it.... This behaviour leads to a waste of 40% CPU time... waiting for other processes (mainly disk access) to finish!!!
I moved freeswitch/db/ to a ramdisk and the performance got a boost to 140 CPS with a CPU load of 80%. I was keeping the machine for a while (20 - 30 minutes) on that rate when i sow CPU suddenly went to 100% and FS becoming irresponsive :).
What can be wrong? What are the limits in CPU usage (50%, 60%, 70%, 80%...) we should not cross? What fine tuning do we need in order to asure a long high load run?
Also, I'm running 32-bit OS (debian 5) on a 64 bit CPU... does it have sense to move my OS to 64 bit? ... will FS gain more preformance ?... I mean will FS perofomr drastically better 20%+ ?
Tihomir.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Giovanni Maruzzelli <gmaruzz@celliax.org> wrote:
Maybe your load comes from disk access?
Try putting the sql and log directories on a ramdisk.
OTH,
-giovanni
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Tihomir Culjaga<tculjaga@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
i'm trying to use freeswitch as a redirecting server meaning FS has to receive an INVITE and according to some rules it will redirect calls to other destinations.
CALLING_USER FREESWITCH SOMEWHERE
INVITE -------------------------------> <------------------------------ 100 Trying <------------------------------ 302 Moved Temporary ACK ------------------------------->
INVITE--------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Well, wverything works well except i have perfromance issues .... on my HW FS cannot do more than 40 CPS (INVITE answered by 302 Moved Temporary). When i increase the rate, FS starts delaying 302 response. Right at 50 CPS i see "calls" being build up in FS and the delay begining to grow.
When i observe the machine, load average is almost nothing (load average: 1.41, 0.61, 0.60) CPU never goes to 100%, and i see only one thread taking most load... all others are just sitting there with 1-5 % CPU time. This looks to me as FS handles 302 messages in a single thread?!?!
tculjaga@FS:/usr/local/freeswitch/conf/dialplan$ top -H
top - 10:41:37 up 167 days, 20:42, 3 users, load average: 1.41, 0.61, 0.60 Tasks: 83 total, 2 running, 81 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 25.3%us, 1.5%sy, 0.0%ni, 30.3%id, 42.7%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.2%si, 0.0%st Mem: 2074520k total, 571244k used, 1503276k free, 259604k buffers Swap: 2650684k total, 3020k used, 2647664k free, 153868k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 4814 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 38 1.0 3:10.29 freeswitch 4800 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 6 1.0 0:08.26 freeswitch 4798 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 R 5 1.0 0:24.46 freeswitch 4787 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 2 1.0 0:11.24 freeswitch 4794 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:11.42 freeswitch 4803 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:11.74 freeswitch 4788 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:02.96 freeswitch 4804 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:01.64 freeswitch 4807 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:01.68 freeswitch 4811 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:02.50 freeswitch
cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 15 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 5140 @ 2.33GHz stepping : 6 cpu MHz : 2333.560 cache size : 4096 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 2 core id : 0 cpu cores : 2 apicid : 0 initial apicid : 0 fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug : no coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 10 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr dca lahf_lm bogomips : 4670.78 clflush size : 64 power management:
processor : 1 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 15 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 5140 @ 2.33GHz stepping : 6 cpu MHz : 2333.560 cache size : 4096 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 2 core id : 1 cpu cores : 2 apicid : 1 initial apicid : 1 fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug : no coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 10 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr dca lahf_lm bogomips : 4666.82 clflush size : 64 power management:
uname -a Linux l01sipindir1 2.6.26-1-686 #1 SMP Sat Jan 10 18:29:31 UTC 2009 i686 GNU/Linux
Of course, i've tuned the machine up
ulimit -c unlimited ulimit -d unlimited ulimit -f unlimited ulimit -i unlimited ulimit -n 999999 ulimit -q unlimited ulimit -u unlimited ulimit -v unlimited ulimit -x unlimited ulimit -s 240 ulimit -l unlimited ulimit -a
Started FS with minimum modules but still 40 CPS seems to be the limit.
So, is there any way to improve performance?
Tihomir.
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Actually in this case, we are bound to one thread in sofia. Mike On Aug 25, 2009, at 9:47 AM, Giovanni Maruzzelli wrote:
is a heavely multithreaded software, it benefits from number of CPUs (or cores), RAM, and heavy duty kernel features (found in 64bit kernels)
put all accesses on ramdisk, leave out the modules you don't use...
experiment, test, and find the best for your specific application/ workload
test not only with sipp, but with real load too (often they're very different)
-gm
Exactly... the scenario i use seems operating on a single thread... why is that ? can it be changed? T. On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Michael Jerris <mike@jerris.com> wrote:
Actually in this case, we are bound to one thread in sofia.
Mike
On Aug 25, 2009, at 9:47 AM, Giovanni Maruzzelli wrote:
is a heavely multithreaded software, it benefits from number of CPUs (or cores), RAM, and heavy duty kernel features (found in 64bit kernels)
put all accesses on ramdisk, leave out the modules you don't use...
experiment, test, and find the best for your specific application/ workload
test not only with sipp, but with real load too (often they're very different)
-gm
_______________________________________________ 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
You also should put your extension first in your dialplan ahead of the default extensions which match every call and do a lot of db access for record keeping etc. The single thread in sofia is part of their concurrency model. The single thread acts as a scheduler and indicates to us that an invite is requested we react to that and spawn a new thread for that call as soon as the data is received. like I said above you are probably hitting all the default stuff to save that last dialed number etc that exists in the default config. sigh, we go through this every new guy doing load testing. On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Tihomir Culjaga <tculjaga@gmail.com>wrote:
Exactly... the scenario i use seems operating on a single thread... why is that ? can it be changed?
T.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Michael Jerris <mike@jerris.com> wrote:
Actually in this case, we are bound to one thread in sofia.
Mike
On Aug 25, 2009, at 9:47 AM, Giovanni Maruzzelli wrote:
is a heavely multithreaded software, it benefits from number of CPUs (or cores), RAM, and heavy duty kernel features (found in 64bit kernels)
put all accesses on ramdisk, leave out the modules you don't use...
experiment, test, and find the best for your specific application/ workload
test not only with sipp, but with real load too (often they're very different)
-gm
_______________________________________________ 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
-- 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
Of course i removed everytihng from teh dialplan except my extension :) when exactly do you react and bring up a new thread ? ... is it on INVITE or on 1st 1xx response ? i beleive i can have several lets call it SIP interfaces ... on different ports 5060, 5070, 5080 ... every interface will have it's own sip profile. does it mean i will have one thread per profile? T. On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Anthony Minessale < anthony.minessale@gmail.com> wrote:
You also should put your extension first in your dialplan ahead of the default extensions which match every call and do a lot of db access for record keeping etc.
The single thread in sofia is part of their concurrency model. The single thread acts as a scheduler and indicates to us that an invite is requested we react to that and spawn a new thread for that call as soon as the data is received.
like I said above you are probably hitting all the default stuff to save that last dialed number etc that exists in the default config.
sigh, we go through this every new guy doing load testing.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Tihomir Culjaga <tculjaga@gmail.com>wrote:
Exactly... the scenario i use seems operating on a single thread... why is that ? can it be changed?
T.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Michael Jerris <mike@jerris.com> wrote:
Actually in this case, we are bound to one thread in sofia.
Mike
On Aug 25, 2009, at 9:47 AM, Giovanni Maruzzelli wrote:
is a heavely multithreaded software, it benefits from number of CPUs (or cores), RAM, and heavy duty kernel features (found in 64bit kernels)
put all accesses on ramdisk, leave out the modules you don't use...
experiment, test, and find the best for your specific application/ workload
test not only with sipp, but with real load too (often they're very different)
-gm
_______________________________________________ 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
-- 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
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Tihomir Culjaga <tculjaga@gmail.com>wrote:
Of course i removed everytihng from teh dialplan except my extension :)
when exactly do you react and bring up a new thread ? ... is it on INVITE or on 1st 1xx response ?
i beleive i can have several lets call it SIP interfaces ... on different ports 5060, 5070, 5080 ... every interface will have it's own sip profile.
does it mean i will have one thread per profile?
Yes.
nice, this is one way to go... btw: when do you exactly bring up a new thread ? T. On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:40 PM, Michael Collins <msc@freeswitch.org> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Tihomir Culjaga <tculjaga@gmail.com>wrote:
Of course i removed everytihng from teh dialplan except my extension :)
when exactly do you react and bring up a new thread ? ... is it on INVITE or on 1st 1xx response ?
i beleive i can have several lets call it SIP interfaces ... on different ports 5060, 5070, 5080 ... every interface will have it's own sip profile.
does it mean i will have one thread per profile?
Yes.
_______________________________________________ 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
mod_sofia will take care of spawning the session thread once it authenticated the call and loaded all the variables related to the call such as the caller profile (callerid, destination number, etc). If you want to check the source, this is done in sofia_handle_sip_i_invite() (sofia.c:5261) with switch_core_session_thread_launch(). Mathieu Rene Avant-Garde Solutions Inc Office: + 1 (514) 664-1044 x100 Cell: +1 (514) 664-1044 x200 mrene@avgs.ca On 25-Aug-09, at 1:53 PM, Tihomir Culjaga wrote:
nice, this is one way to go...
btw: when do you exactly bring up a new thread ?
T.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:40 PM, Michael Collins <msc@freeswitch.org> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Tihomir Culjaga <tculjaga@gmail.com> wrote: Of course i removed everytihng from teh dialplan except my extension :)
when exactly do you react and bring up a new thread ? ... is it on INVITE or on 1st 1xx response ?
i beleive i can have several lets call it SIP interfaces ... on different ports 5060, 5070, 5080 ... every interface will have it's own sip profile.
does it mean i will have one thread per profile? Yes.
_______________________________________________ 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
On Aug 25, 2009, at 1:40 PM, Michael Collins wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Tihomir Culjaga <tculjaga@gmail.com> wrote: Of course i removed everytihng from teh dialplan except my extension :)
when exactly do you react and bring up a new thread ? ... is it on INVITE or on 1st 1xx response ?
Before it hits the dialplan.
i beleive i can have several lets call it SIP interfaces ... on different ports 5060, 5070, 5080 ... every interface will have it's own sip profile.
does it mean i will have one thread per profile? Yes.
And no. There are still parts of the stack that are in one thread. Mike
clear... thanks! On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Michael Jerris <mike@jerris.com> wrote:
On Aug 25, 2009, at 1:40 PM, Michael Collins wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Tihomir Culjaga <tculjaga@gmail.com>wrote:
Of course i removed everytihng from teh dialplan except my extension :)
when exactly do you react and bring up a new thread ? ... is it on INVITE or on 1st 1xx response ?
Before it hits the dialplan.
i beleive i can have several lets call it SIP interfaces ... on different ports 5060, 5070, 5080 ... every interface will have it's own sip profile.
does it mean i will have one thread per profile?
Yes.
And no. There are still parts of the stack that are in one thread.
Mike
_______________________________________________ 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
This requires invasive changes in the sofia-sip stack to get thread- pooling working again. I am sure they would accept patches if you can provide some that fully address any issues that may come up from adding this such as race conditions. Mike On Aug 25, 2009, at 12:34 PM, Tihomir Culjaga wrote:
Exactly... the scenario i use seems operating on a single thread... why is that ? can it be changed?
T.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Michael Jerris <mike@jerris.com> wrote: Actually in this case, we are bound to one thread in sofia.
Mike
On Aug 25, 2009, at 9:47 AM, Giovanni Maruzzelli wrote:
is a heavely multithreaded software, it benefits from number of CPUs (or cores), RAM, and heavy duty kernel features (found in 64bit kernels)
put all accesses on ramdisk, leave out the modules you don't use...
experiment, test, and find the best for your specific application/ workload
test not only with sipp, but with real load too (often they're very different)
-gm
Hi Giovanny, thanks for your help, everything that heavyly accesses the disk is on ramdisk now... hopefully will get some real traffic pretty soon... On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Giovanni Maruzzelli <gmaruzz@celliax.org>wrote:
is a heavely multithreaded software, it benefits from number of CPUs (or cores), RAM, and heavy duty kernel features (found in 64bit kernels)
put all accesses on ramdisk, leave out the modules you don't use...
experiment, test, and find the best for your specific application/workload
test not only with sipp, but with real load too (often they're very different)
-gm
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Tihomir Culjaga<tculjaga@gmail.com> wrote:
thanks for the feedback... this is something im going to do tomorrow...
what about other things?
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Jay Binks <jaybinks@gmail.com> wrote:
Everytime someone asks this , the resounding answer is use a 64bit os.. No question Jay
On 25/08/2009, at 23:19, Tihomir Culjaga <tculjaga@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Giovanni,
thanks for the tip... indeed the db files were heavily used regardless
if
i started freeswitch with nosql option (freeswitch -nosql)... FS was not writing anything into that files ... instead it was just accessing it.... This behaviour leads to a waste of 40% CPU time... waiting for other processes (mainly disk access) to finish!!!
I moved freeswitch/db/ to a ramdisk and the performance got a boost to 140 CPS with a CPU load of 80%. I was keeping the machine for a while (20 - 30 minutes) on that rate when i sow CPU suddenly went to 100% and FS becoming irresponsive :).
What can be wrong? What are the limits in CPU usage (50%, 60%, 70%, 80%...) we should not cross? What fine tuning do we need in order to asure a long high load run?
Also, I'm running 32-bit OS (debian 5) on a 64 bit CPU... does it have sense to move my OS to 64 bit? ... will FS gain more preformance ?... I mean will FS perofomr drastically better 20%+ ?
Tihomir.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Giovanni Maruzzelli <gmaruzz@celliax.org> wrote:
Maybe your load comes from disk access?
Try putting the sql and log directories on a ramdisk.
OTH,
-giovanni
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Tihomir Culjaga<tculjaga@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
i'm trying to use freeswitch as a redirecting server meaning FS has
to
receive an INVITE and according to some rules it will redirect calls to other destinations.
CALLING_USER FREESWITCH SOMEWHERE
INVITE -------------------------------> <------------------------------ 100 Trying <------------------------------ 302 Moved Temporary ACK ------------------------------->
INVITE--------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Well, wverything works well except i have perfromance issues .... on
my
HW FS cannot do more than 40 CPS (INVITE answered by 302 Moved Temporary). When i increase the rate, FS starts delaying 302 response. Right at 50 CPS i see "calls" being build up in FS and the delay begining to grow.
When i observe the machine, load average is almost nothing (load average: 1.41, 0.61, 0.60) CPU never goes to 100%, and i see only one thread taking most load... all others are just sitting there with 1-5 % CPU time. This looks to me as FS handles 302 messages in a single thread?!?!
tculjaga@FS:/usr/local/freeswitch/conf/dialplan$ top -H
top - 10:41:37 up 167 days, 20:42, 3 users, load average: 1.41, 0.61, 0.60 Tasks: 83 total, 2 running, 81 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 25.3%us, 1.5%sy, 0.0%ni, 30.3%id, 42.7%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.2%si, 0.0%st Mem: 2074520k total, 571244k used, 1503276k free, 259604k buffers Swap: 2650684k total, 3020k used, 2647664k free, 153868k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 4814 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 38 1.0 3:10.29 freeswitch 4800 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 6 1.0 0:08.26 freeswitch 4798 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 R 5 1.0 0:24.46 freeswitch 4787 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 2 1.0 0:11.24 freeswitch 4794 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:11.42 freeswitch 4803 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:11.74 freeswitch 4788 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:02.96 freeswitch 4804 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:01.64 freeswitch 4807 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:01.68 freeswitch 4811 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:02.50 freeswitch
cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 15 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 5140 @ 2.33GHz stepping : 6 cpu MHz : 2333.560 cache size : 4096 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 2 core id : 0 cpu cores : 2 apicid : 0 initial apicid : 0 fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug : no coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 10 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr dca lahf_lm bogomips : 4670.78 clflush size : 64 power management:
processor : 1 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 15 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 5140 @ 2.33GHz stepping : 6 cpu MHz : 2333.560 cache size : 4096 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 2 core id : 1 cpu cores : 2 apicid : 1 initial apicid : 1 fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug : no coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 10 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr dca lahf_lm bogomips : 4666.82 clflush size : 64 power management:
uname -a Linux l01sipindir1 2.6.26-1-686 #1 SMP Sat Jan 10 18:29:31 UTC 2009 i686 GNU/Linux
Of course, i've tuned the machine up
ulimit -c unlimited ulimit -d unlimited ulimit -f unlimited ulimit -i unlimited ulimit -n 999999 ulimit -q unlimited ulimit -u unlimited ulimit -v unlimited ulimit -x unlimited ulimit -s 240 ulimit -l unlimited ulimit -a
Started FS with minimum modules but still 40 CPS seems to be the limit.
So, is there any way to improve performance?
Tihomir.
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Definitely go for 64 bit OS. If you want to be safe and sure, go for CentOS 5.2 64bit. Is the one used both for development and for heavy duty production. Also Ubuntu 8.04 is good. Other versions/distros are less used by the community. Adding RAM and CPUs helps to scale up. -gm Sincerely, Giovanni Maruzzelli Cell : +39-347-2665618 On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Tihomir Culjaga<tculjaga@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Giovanni,
thanks for the tip... indeed the db files were heavily used regardless if i started freeswitch with nosql option (freeswitch -nosql)... FS was not writing anything into that files ... instead it was just accessing it.... This behaviour leads to a waste of 40% CPU time... waiting for other processes (mainly disk access) to finish!!!
I moved freeswitch/db/ to a ramdisk and the performance got a boost to 140 CPS with a CPU load of 80%. I was keeping the machine for a while (20 - 30 minutes) on that rate when i sow CPU suddenly went to 100% and FS becoming irresponsive :).
What can be wrong? What are the limits in CPU usage (50%, 60%, 70%, 80%...) we should not cross? What fine tuning do we need in order to asure a long high load run?
Also, I'm running 32-bit OS (debian 5) on a 64 bit CPU... does it have sense to move my OS to 64 bit? ... will FS gain more preformance ?... I mean will FS perofomr drastically better 20%+ ?
Tihomir.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Giovanni Maruzzelli <gmaruzz@celliax.org> wrote:
Maybe your load comes from disk access?
Try putting the sql and log directories on a ramdisk.
OTH,
-giovanni
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Tihomir Culjaga<tculjaga@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
i'm trying to use freeswitch as a redirecting server meaning FS has to receive an INVITE and according to some rules it will redirect calls to other destinations.
CALLING_USER FREESWITCH SOMEWHERE
INVITE -------------------------------> <------------------------------ 100 Trying <------------------------------ 302 Moved Temporary ACK ------------------------------->
INVITE--------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Well, wverything works well except i have perfromance issues .... on my HW FS cannot do more than 40 CPS (INVITE answered by 302 Moved Temporary). When i increase the rate, FS starts delaying 302 response. Right at 50 CPS i see "calls" being build up in FS and the delay begining to grow.
When i observe the machine, load average is almost nothing (load average: 1.41, 0.61, 0.60) CPU never goes to 100%, and i see only one thread taking most load... all others are just sitting there with 1-5 % CPU time. This looks to me as FS handles 302 messages in a single thread?!?!
tculjaga@FS:/usr/local/freeswitch/conf/dialplan$ top -H
top - 10:41:37 up 167 days, 20:42, 3 users, load average: 1.41, 0.61, 0.60 Tasks: 83 total, 2 running, 81 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 25.3%us, 1.5%sy, 0.0%ni, 30.3%id, 42.7%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.2%si, 0.0%st Mem: 2074520k total, 571244k used, 1503276k free, 259604k buffers Swap: 2650684k total, 3020k used, 2647664k free, 153868k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 4814 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 38 1.0 3:10.29 freeswitch 4800 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 6 1.0 0:08.26 freeswitch 4798 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 R 5 1.0 0:24.46 freeswitch 4787 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 2 1.0 0:11.24 freeswitch 4794 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:11.42 freeswitch 4803 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:11.74 freeswitch 4788 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:02.96 freeswitch 4804 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:01.64 freeswitch 4807 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:01.68 freeswitch 4811 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:02.50 freeswitch
cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 15 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 5140 @ 2.33GHz stepping : 6 cpu MHz : 2333.560 cache size : 4096 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 2 core id : 0 cpu cores : 2 apicid : 0 initial apicid : 0 fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug : no coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 10 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr dca lahf_lm bogomips : 4670.78 clflush size : 64 power management:
processor : 1 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 15 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 5140 @ 2.33GHz stepping : 6 cpu MHz : 2333.560 cache size : 4096 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 2 core id : 1 cpu cores : 2 apicid : 1 initial apicid : 1 fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug : no coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 10 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr dca lahf_lm bogomips : 4666.82 clflush size : 64 power management:
uname -a Linux l01sipindir1 2.6.26-1-686 #1 SMP Sat Jan 10 18:29:31 UTC 2009 i686 GNU/Linux
Of course, i've tuned the machine up
ulimit -c unlimited ulimit -d unlimited ulimit -f unlimited ulimit -i unlimited ulimit -n 999999 ulimit -q unlimited ulimit -u unlimited ulimit -v unlimited ulimit -x unlimited ulimit -s 240 ulimit -l unlimited ulimit -a
Started FS with minimum modules but still 40 CPS seems to be the limit.
So, is there any way to improve performance?
Tihomir.
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi Giovanny, regarding ubuntu, did you mean 8.04 server or desktop ? On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Giovanni Maruzzelli <gmaruzz@celliax.org>wrote:
Definitely go for 64 bit OS.
If you want to be safe and sure, go for CentOS 5.2 64bit. Is the one used both for development and for heavy duty production.
Also Ubuntu 8.04 is good.
Other versions/distros are less used by the community.
Adding RAM and CPUs helps to scale up.
-gm
Sincerely,
Giovanni Maruzzelli Cell : +39-347-2665618
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Tihomir Culjaga<tculjaga@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Giovanni,
thanks for the tip... indeed the db files were heavily used regardless if i started freeswitch with nosql option (freeswitch -nosql)... FS was not writing anything into that files ... instead it was just accessing it.... This behaviour leads to a waste of 40% CPU time... waiting for other processes (mainly disk access) to finish!!!
I moved freeswitch/db/ to a ramdisk and the performance got a boost to 140 CPS with a CPU load of 80%. I was keeping the machine for a while (20 - 30 minutes) on that rate when i sow CPU suddenly went to 100% and FS becoming irresponsive :).
What can be wrong? What are the limits in CPU usage (50%, 60%, 70%, 80%...) we should not cross? What fine tuning do we need in order to asure a long high load run?
Also, I'm running 32-bit OS (debian 5) on a 64 bit CPU... does it have sense to move my OS to 64 bit? ... will FS gain more preformance ?... I mean will FS perofomr drastically better 20%+ ?
Tihomir.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Giovanni Maruzzelli < gmaruzz@celliax.org> wrote:
Maybe your load comes from disk access?
Try putting the sql and log directories on a ramdisk.
OTH,
-giovanni
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Tihomir Culjaga<tculjaga@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
i'm trying to use freeswitch as a redirecting server meaning FS has to receive an INVITE and according to some rules it will redirect calls
to
other destinations.
CALLING_USER FREESWITCH SOMEWHERE
INVITE -------------------------------> <------------------------------ 100 Trying <------------------------------ 302 Moved Temporary ACK ------------------------------->
INVITE--------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Well, wverything works well except i have perfromance issues .... on
my
HW FS cannot do more than 40 CPS (INVITE answered by 302 Moved Temporary). When i increase the rate, FS starts delaying 302 response. Right at 50 CPS i see "calls" being build up in FS and the delay begining to grow.
When i observe the machine, load average is almost nothing (load average: 1.41, 0.61, 0.60) CPU never goes to 100%, and i see only one thread taking most load... all others are just sitting there with 1-5 % CPU time. This looks to me as FS handles 302 messages in a single thread?!?!
tculjaga@FS:/usr/local/freeswitch/conf/dialplan$ top -H
top - 10:41:37 up 167 days, 20:42, 3 users, load average: 1.41, 0.61, 0.60 Tasks: 83 total, 2 running, 81 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 25.3%us, 1.5%sy, 0.0%ni, 30.3%id, 42.7%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.2%si, 0.0%st Mem: 2074520k total, 571244k used, 1503276k free, 259604k buffers Swap: 2650684k total, 3020k used, 2647664k free, 153868k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 4814 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 38 1.0 3:10.29 freeswitch 4800 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 6 1.0 0:08.26 freeswitch 4798 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 R 5 1.0 0:24.46 freeswitch 4787 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 2 1.0 0:11.24 freeswitch 4794 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:11.42 freeswitch 4803 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:11.74 freeswitch 4788 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:02.96 freeswitch 4804 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:01.64 freeswitch 4807 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:01.68 freeswitch 4811 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:02.50 freeswitch
cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 15 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 5140 @ 2.33GHz stepping : 6 cpu MHz : 2333.560 cache size : 4096 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 2 core id : 0 cpu cores : 2 apicid : 0 initial apicid : 0 fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug : no coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 10 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr dca lahf_lm bogomips : 4670.78 clflush size : 64 power management:
processor : 1 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 15 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 5140 @ 2.33GHz stepping : 6 cpu MHz : 2333.560 cache size : 4096 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 2 core id : 1 cpu cores : 2 apicid : 1 initial apicid : 1 fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug : no coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 10 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr dca lahf_lm bogomips : 4666.82 clflush size : 64 power management:
uname -a Linux l01sipindir1 2.6.26-1-686 #1 SMP Sat Jan 10 18:29:31 UTC 2009 i686 GNU/Linux
Of course, i've tuned the machine up
ulimit -c unlimited ulimit -d unlimited ulimit -f unlimited ulimit -i unlimited ulimit -n 999999 ulimit -q unlimited ulimit -u unlimited ulimit -v unlimited ulimit -x unlimited ulimit -s 240 ulimit -l unlimited ulimit -a
Started FS with minimum modules but still 40 CPS seems to be the limit.
So, is there any way to improve performance?
Tihomir.
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
netbook remix joking! Server 64bit :-) -gm On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Tihomir Culjaga<tculjaga@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Giovanny,
regarding ubuntu, did you mean 8.04 server or desktop ?
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Giovanni Maruzzelli <gmaruzz@celliax.org> wrote:
Definitely go for 64 bit OS.
If you want to be safe and sure, go for CentOS 5.2 64bit. Is the one used both for development and for heavy duty production.
Also Ubuntu 8.04 is good.
Other versions/distros are less used by the community.
Adding RAM and CPUs helps to scale up.
-gm
Sincerely,
Giovanni Maruzzelli Cell : +39-347-2665618
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Tihomir Culjaga<tculjaga@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Giovanni,
thanks for the tip... indeed the db files were heavily used regardless if i started freeswitch with nosql option (freeswitch -nosql)... FS was not writing anything into that files ... instead it was just accessing it.... This behaviour leads to a waste of 40% CPU time... waiting for other processes (mainly disk access) to finish!!!
I moved freeswitch/db/ to a ramdisk and the performance got a boost to 140 CPS with a CPU load of 80%. I was keeping the machine for a while (20 - 30 minutes) on that rate when i sow CPU suddenly went to 100% and FS becoming irresponsive :).
What can be wrong? What are the limits in CPU usage (50%, 60%, 70%, 80%...) we should not cross? What fine tuning do we need in order to asure a long high load run?
Also, I'm running 32-bit OS (debian 5) on a 64 bit CPU... does it have sense to move my OS to 64 bit? ... will FS gain more preformance ?... I mean will FS perofomr drastically better 20%+ ?
Tihomir.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Giovanni Maruzzelli <gmaruzz@celliax.org> wrote:
Maybe your load comes from disk access?
Try putting the sql and log directories on a ramdisk.
OTH,
-giovanni
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Tihomir Culjaga<tculjaga@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
i'm trying to use freeswitch as a redirecting server meaning FS has to receive an INVITE and according to some rules it will redirect calls to other destinations.
CALLING_USER FREESWITCH SOMEWHERE
INVITE -------------------------------> <------------------------------ 100 Trying <------------------------------ 302 Moved Temporary ACK ------------------------------->
INVITE--------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Well, wverything works well except i have perfromance issues .... on my HW FS cannot do more than 40 CPS (INVITE answered by 302 Moved Temporary). When i increase the rate, FS starts delaying 302 response. Right at 50 CPS i see "calls" being build up in FS and the delay begining to grow.
When i observe the machine, load average is almost nothing (load average: 1.41, 0.61, 0.60) CPU never goes to 100%, and i see only one thread taking most load... all others are just sitting there with 1-5 % CPU time. This looks to me as FS handles 302 messages in a single thread?!?!
tculjaga@FS:/usr/local/freeswitch/conf/dialplan$ top -H
top - 10:41:37 up 167 days, 20:42, 3 users, load average: 1.41, 0.61, 0.60 Tasks: 83 total, 2 running, 81 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 25.3%us, 1.5%sy, 0.0%ni, 30.3%id, 42.7%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.2%si, 0.0%st Mem: 2074520k total, 571244k used, 1503276k free, 259604k buffers Swap: 2650684k total, 3020k used, 2647664k free, 153868k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 4814 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 38 1.0 3:10.29 freeswitch 4800 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 6 1.0 0:08.26 freeswitch 4798 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 R 5 1.0 0:24.46 freeswitch 4787 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 2 1.0 0:11.24 freeswitch 4794 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:11.42 freeswitch 4803 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:11.74 freeswitch 4788 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:02.96 freeswitch 4804 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:01.64 freeswitch 4807 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:01.68 freeswitch 4811 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:02.50 freeswitch
cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 15 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 5140 @ 2.33GHz stepping : 6 cpu MHz : 2333.560 cache size : 4096 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 2 core id : 0 cpu cores : 2 apicid : 0 initial apicid : 0 fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug : no coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 10 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr dca lahf_lm bogomips : 4670.78 clflush size : 64 power management:
processor : 1 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 15 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 5140 @ 2.33GHz stepping : 6 cpu MHz : 2333.560 cache size : 4096 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 2 core id : 1 cpu cores : 2 apicid : 1 initial apicid : 1 fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug : no coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 10 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr dca lahf_lm bogomips : 4666.82 clflush size : 64 power management:
uname -a Linux l01sipindir1 2.6.26-1-686 #1 SMP Sat Jan 10 18:29:31 UTC 2009 i686 GNU/Linux
Of course, i've tuned the machine up
ulimit -c unlimited ulimit -d unlimited ulimit -f unlimited ulimit -i unlimited ulimit -n 999999 ulimit -q unlimited ulimit -u unlimited ulimit -v unlimited ulimit -x unlimited ulimit -s 240 ulimit -l unlimited ulimit -a
Started FS with minimum modules but still 40 CPS seems to be the limit.
So, is there any way to improve performance?
Tihomir.
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
intanto e il centos che si sta installando :) grazie. T. On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Giovanni Maruzzelli <gmaruzz@celliax.org>wrote:
netbook remix
joking! Server 64bit :-)
-gm
Hi Giovanny,
regarding ubuntu, did you mean 8.04 server or desktop ?
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Giovanni Maruzzelli < gmaruzz@celliax.org> wrote:
Definitely go for 64 bit OS.
If you want to be safe and sure, go for CentOS 5.2 64bit. Is the one used both for development and for heavy duty production.
Also Ubuntu 8.04 is good.
Other versions/distros are less used by the community.
Adding RAM and CPUs helps to scale up.
-gm
Sincerely,
Giovanni Maruzzelli Cell : +39-347-2665618
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Tihomir Culjaga<tculjaga@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Giovanni,
thanks for the tip... indeed the db files were heavily used regardless if i started freeswitch with nosql option (freeswitch -nosql)... FS was not writing anything into that files ... instead it was just accessing it.... This behaviour leads to a waste of 40% CPU time... waiting for other processes (mainly disk access) to finish!!!
I moved freeswitch/db/ to a ramdisk and the performance got a boost to 140 CPS with a CPU load of 80%. I was keeping the machine for a while (20
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Tihomir Culjaga<tculjaga@gmail.com> wrote: -
30 minutes) on that rate when i sow CPU suddenly went to 100% and FS becoming irresponsive :).
What can be wrong? What are the limits in CPU usage (50%, 60%, 70%, 80%...) we should not cross? What fine tuning do we need in order to asure a long high load run?
Also, I'm running 32-bit OS (debian 5) on a 64 bit CPU... does it have sense to move my OS to 64 bit? ... will FS gain more preformance ?... I mean will FS perofomr drastically better 20%+ ?
Tihomir.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Giovanni Maruzzelli <gmaruzz@celliax.org> wrote:
Maybe your load comes from disk access?
Try putting the sql and log directories on a ramdisk.
OTH,
-giovanni
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Tihomir Culjaga<tculjaga@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello,
i'm trying to use freeswitch as a redirecting server meaning FS has to receive an INVITE and according to some rules it will redirect calls to other destinations.
CALLING_USER FREESWITCH SOMEWHERE
INVITE -------------------------------> <------------------------------ 100 Trying <------------------------------ 302 Moved Temporary ACK ------------------------------->
INVITE--------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Well, wverything works well except i have perfromance issues ....
on
my HW FS cannot do more than 40 CPS (INVITE answered by 302 Moved Temporary). When i increase the rate, FS starts delaying 302 response. Right at 50 CPS i see "calls" being build up in FS and the delay begining to grow.
When i observe the machine, load average is almost nothing (load average: 1.41, 0.61, 0.60) CPU never goes to 100%, and i see only one thread taking most load... all others are just sitting there with 1-5 % CPU time. This looks to me as FS handles 302 messages in a single thread?!?!
tculjaga@FS:/usr/local/freeswitch/conf/dialplan$ top -H
top - 10:41:37 up 167 days, 20:42, 3 users, load average: 1.41, 0.61, 0.60 Tasks: 83 total, 2 running, 81 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 25.3%us, 1.5%sy, 0.0%ni, 30.3%id, 42.7%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.2%si, 0.0%st Mem: 2074520k total, 571244k used, 1503276k free, 259604k buffers Swap: 2650684k total, 3020k used, 2647664k free, 153868k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 4814 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 38 1.0 3:10.29 freeswitch 4800 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 6 1.0 0:08.26 freeswitch 4798 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 R 5 1.0 0:24.46 freeswitch 4787 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 2 1.0 0:11.24 freeswitch 4794 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:11.42 freeswitch 4803 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:11.74 freeswitch 4788 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:02.96 freeswitch 4804 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:01.64 freeswitch 4807 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:01.68 freeswitch 4811 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:02.50 freeswitch
cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 15 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 5140 @ 2.33GHz stepping : 6 cpu MHz : 2333.560 cache size : 4096 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 2 core id : 0 cpu cores : 2 apicid : 0 initial apicid : 0 fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug : no coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 10 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr dca lahf_lm bogomips : 4670.78 clflush size : 64 power management:
processor : 1 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 15 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 5140 @ 2.33GHz stepping : 6 cpu MHz : 2333.560 cache size : 4096 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 2 core id : 1 cpu cores : 2 apicid : 1 initial apicid : 1 fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug : no coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 10 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr dca lahf_lm bogomips : 4666.82 clflush size : 64 power management:
uname -a Linux l01sipindir1 2.6.26-1-686 #1 SMP Sat Jan 10 18:29:31 UTC 2009 i686 GNU/Linux
Of course, i've tuned the machine up
ulimit -c unlimited ulimit -d unlimited ulimit -f unlimited ulimit -i unlimited ulimit -n 999999 ulimit -q unlimited ulimit -u unlimited ulimit -v unlimited ulimit -x unlimited ulimit -s 240 ulimit -l unlimited ulimit -a
Started FS with minimum modules but still 40 CPS seems to be the limit.
So, is there any way to improve performance?
Tihomir.
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi all, is there same situation with FS for Windows? I mean 64bit is more preferable than 32bit, isn't it? Any performance test on Win 32/64 were done? -- Best regards, Dmitry Kadantsev On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Tihomir Culjaga <tculjaga@gmail.com>wrote:
intanto e il centos che si sta installando :)
grazie.
T.
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Giovanni Maruzzelli <gmaruzz@celliax.org
wrote:
netbook remix
joking! Server 64bit :-)
-gm
Hi Giovanny,
regarding ubuntu, did you mean 8.04 server or desktop ?
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Giovanni Maruzzelli < gmaruzz@celliax.org> wrote:
Definitely go for 64 bit OS.
If you want to be safe and sure, go for CentOS 5.2 64bit. Is the one used both for development and for heavy duty production.
Also Ubuntu 8.04 is good.
Other versions/distros are less used by the community.
Adding RAM and CPUs helps to scale up.
-gm
Sincerely,
Giovanni Maruzzelli Cell : +39-347-2665618
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Tihomir Culjaga<tculjaga@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Giovanni,
thanks for the tip... indeed the db files were heavily used
regardless
if i started freeswitch with nosql option (freeswitch -nosql)... FS was not writing anything into that files ... instead it was just accessing it.... This behaviour leads to a waste of 40% CPU time... waiting for other processes (mainly disk access) to finish!!!
I moved freeswitch/db/ to a ramdisk and the performance got a boost to 140 CPS with a CPU load of 80%. I was keeping the machine for a while (20
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Tihomir Culjaga<tculjaga@gmail.com> wrote: -
30 minutes) on that rate when i sow CPU suddenly went to 100% and FS becoming irresponsive :).
What can be wrong? What are the limits in CPU usage (50%, 60%, 70%, 80%...) we should not cross? What fine tuning do we need in order to asure a long high load run?
Also, I'm running 32-bit OS (debian 5) on a 64 bit CPU... does it have sense to move my OS to 64 bit? ... will FS gain more preformance ?... I mean will FS perofomr drastically better 20%+ ?
Tihomir.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Giovanni Maruzzelli <gmaruzz@celliax.org> wrote:
Maybe your load comes from disk access?
Try putting the sql and log directories on a ramdisk.
OTH,
-giovanni
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Tihomir Culjaga<
tculjaga@gmail.com>
wrote: > Hello, > > i'm trying to use freeswitch as a redirecting server meaning FS has > to > receive an INVITE and according to some rules it will redirect calls > to > other destinations. > > > CALLING_USER FREESWITCH > SOMEWHERE > > INVITE -------------------------------> > <------------------------------ 100 Trying > <------------------------------ 302 Moved Temporary > ACK -------------------------------> > > > INVITE---------------------------------------------------------------------------------> > > > > Well, wverything works well except i have perfromance issues .... on > my > HW > FS cannot do more than 40 CPS (INVITE answered by 302 Moved > Temporary). > When > i increase the rate, FS starts delaying 302 response. Right at 50 CPS > i > see > "calls" being build up in FS and the delay begining to grow. > > When i observe the machine, load average is almost nothing (load > average: > 1.41, 0.61, 0.60) CPU never goes to 100%, and i see only one thread > taking > most load... all others are just sitting there with 1-5 % CPU time. > This looks to me as FS handles 302 messages in a single thread?!?! > > > tculjaga@FS:/usr/local/freeswitch/conf/dialplan$ top -H > > top - 10:41:37 up 167 days, 20:42, 3 users, load average: 1.41, > 0.61, > 0.60 > Tasks: 83 total, 2 running, 81 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie > Cpu(s): 25.3%us, 1.5%sy, 0.0%ni, 30.3%id, 42.7%wa, 0.0%hi, > 0.2%si, > 0.0%st > Mem: 2074520k total, 571244k used, 1503276k free, 259604k > buffers > Swap: 2650684k total, 3020k used, 2647664k free, 153868k > cached > > PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ > COMMAND > 4814 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 38 1.0 3:10.29 > freeswitch > 4800 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 6 1.0 0:08.26 > freeswitch > 4798 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 R 5 1.0 0:24.46 > freeswitch > 4787 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 2 1.0 0:11.24 > freeswitch > 4794 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:11.42 > freeswitch > 4803 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:11.74 > freeswitch > 4788 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:02.96 > freeswitch > 4804 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:01.64 > freeswitch > 4807 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:01.68 > freeswitch > 4811 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:02.50 > freeswitch > > > > cat /proc/cpuinfo > processor : 0 > vendor_id : GenuineIntel > cpu family : 6 > model : 15 > model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 5140 @ 2.33GHz > stepping : 6 > cpu MHz : 2333.560 > cache size : 4096 KB > physical id : 0 > siblings : 2 > core id : 0 > cpu cores : 2 > apicid : 0 > initial apicid : 0 > fdiv_bug : no > hlt_bug : no > f00f_bug : no > coma_bug : no > fpu : yes > fpu_exception : yes > cpuid level : 10 > wp : yes > flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr > pge > mca > cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe lm > constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 > ssse3 > cx16 > xtpr dca lahf_lm > bogomips : 4670.78 > clflush size : 64 > power management: > > processor : 1 > vendor_id : GenuineIntel > cpu family : 6 > model : 15 > model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 5140 @ 2.33GHz > stepping : 6 > cpu MHz : 2333.560 > cache size : 4096 KB > physical id : 0 > siblings : 2 > core id : 1 > cpu cores : 2 > apicid : 1 > initial apicid : 1 > fdiv_bug : no > hlt_bug : no > f00f_bug : no > coma_bug : no > fpu : yes > fpu_exception : yes > cpuid level : 10 > wp : yes > flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr > pge > mca > cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe lm > constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 > ssse3 > cx16 > xtpr dca lahf_lm > bogomips : 4666.82 > clflush size : 64 > power management: > > > > uname -a > Linux l01sipindir1 2.6.26-1-686 #1 SMP Sat Jan 10 18:29:31 UTC 2009 > i686 > GNU/Linux > > > > Of course, i've tuned the machine up > > ulimit -c unlimited > ulimit -d unlimited > ulimit -f unlimited > ulimit -i unlimited > ulimit -n 999999 > ulimit -q unlimited > ulimit -u unlimited > ulimit -v unlimited > ulimit -x unlimited > ulimit -s 240 > ulimit -l unlimited > ulimit -a > > > Started FS with minimum modules but still 40 CPS seems to be the > limit. > > > So, is there any way to improve performance? > > > Tihomir. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Guys you made a monster!! so, i moved the machine to 64bit CentOS 5.3... recompiled the latest trunk and did my tests again. The old tests on 32bit debian 5 on the same hardware shown a CPS rate of 120 as 75 - 80% CPU.... and after some time on that 120 CPS rate the CPU goes to 100% without any chance FS recovers at all. New tests on 64bit CentOS shown a monster.... 400 CPS rate at 75% CPU.... during the tests FS was really stable and responsive... i placed few calls that went through as a charm :). Also, i didn't optimize the machine at all ... as it is after CentOS install!.... not even db files are on ramdisk. What did it really happen? .. did you guys change something in the trunk overnight or it is just moving to CentOS 64bit that boosted drastically? Here are some details: ÚnmonÄ12aÄÄÄÄÄÄ[H for help]ÄÄÄHostname=l01sipindir2ÄRefresh= 2secs ÄÄÄ19:17.48ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ³ CPU +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ³ ³100%-| | ³ ³ 95%-| | ³ ³ 90%-| | ³ ³ 85%-| | ³ ³ 80%-| | w s w www w s sw s s s ³ ³ 75%-| |ssssssssssssssssssssswssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss ³ ³ 70%-| +sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssUssssssssUsssUssssssssssUssssssssssss ³ ³ 65%-| |UUUUUsUsUUUUUUUUUUUUUsUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUsUUU ³ ³ 60%-| |UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU ³ ³ 55%-| |UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU ³ ³ 50%-| |UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU ³ ³ 45%-| |UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU ³ ³ 40%-| |UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUw ³ ³ 35%-| |UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUs ³ ³ 30%-| |UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU ³ ³ 25%-| |UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU ³ ³ 20%-| |UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU ³ ³ 15%-| |UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU ³ ³ 10%-| |UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU ³ ³ 5%-| |UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU ³ ³ +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ³ ³ CPU Utilisation ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄij ³ +-------------------------------------------------+ ³ ³CPU User% Sys% Wait% Idle|0 |25 |50 |75 100| ³ ³ 1 1.0 0.5 0.0 98.5|
| ³
³ 2 1.5 1.0 0.0 97.5|
| ³ ³ +-------------------------------------------------+ ³ ³Avg 1.2 0.5 0.0 98.3| | ³ ³ +-------------------------------------------------+ ³ ³ Disk I/O ÄÄÄÄÄ(/proc/diskstats)ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄall data is Kbytes per secondÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄij ³DiskName Busy Read WriteKB|0 |25 |50 |75 100| ³ ³iss/c0d0 0% 0.0 0.0| | ³ ³s/c0d0p1 0% 0.0 0.0|> | ³ ³s/c0d0p2 0% 0.0 0.0| | ³ ³dm-0 0% 0.0 0.0| | ³ ³dm-1 0% 0.0 0.0|> | ³ ³ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄij
------------------------------ Scenario Screen -------- [1-9]: Change Screen -- Call-rate(length) Port Total-time Total-calls Remote-host 40.0(0 ms)/0.100s 5060 488.20 s 193555 10.4.4.252:5060(UDP) 402 new calls during 1.002 s period 0 ms scheduler resolution 3 calls (limit 4000) Peak was 53 calls, after 351 s 0 Running, 13216 Paused, 670 Woken up 0 dead call msg (discarded) 0 out-of-call msg (discarded) 3 open sockets Messages Retrans Timeout Unexpected-Msg INVITE ----------> B-RTD1 193553 0 0 100 <---------- E-RTD1 193553 0 0 0 302 <---------- E-RTD2 193552 0 0 0 ACK ----------> 193552 0 ------ [+|-|*|/]: Adjust rate ---- [q]: Soft exit ---- [p]: Pause traffic ----- ------------------------------ Scenario Screen -------- [1-9]: Change Screen -- Call-rate(length) Port Total-time Total-calls Remote-host 40.0(0 ms)/0.100s 5060 489.10 s 193917 10.4.4.252:5060(UDP) 362 new calls during 0.906 s period 1 ms scheduler resolution 2 calls (limit 4000) Peak was 53 calls, after 351 s 0 Running, 13215 Paused, 623 Woken up 0 dead call msg (discarded) 0 out-of-call msg (discarded) 3 open sockets Messages Retrans Timeout Unexpected-Msg INVITE ----------> B-RTD1 193917 0 0 100 <---------- E-RTD1 193917 0 0 0 302 <---------- E-RTD2 193915 0 0 0 ACK ----------> 193915 0 ------------------------------ Test Terminated -------------------------------- ----------------------------- Statistics Screen ------- [1-9]: Change Screen -- Start Time | 2009-08-26 19:09:34:575 1251306574.575684 Last Reset Time | 2009-08-26 19:17:42:779 1251307062.779468 Current Time | 2009-08-26 19:17:43:685 1251307063.685281 -------------------------+---------------------------+-------------------------- Counter Name | Periodic value | Cumulative value -------------------------+---------------------------+-------------------------- Elapsed Time | 00:00:00:905 | 00:08:09:109 Call Rate | 400.000 cps | 396.470 cps -------------------------+---------------------------+-------------------------- Incoming call created | 0 | 0 OutGoing call created | 362 | 193917 Total Call created | | 193917 Current Call | 2 | -------------------------+---------------------------+-------------------------- Successful call | 363 | 193915 Failed call | 0 | 0 -------------------------+---------------------------+-------------------------- Response Time 1 | 00:00:00:001 | 00:00:00:000 Response Time 2 | 00:00:00:010 | 00:00:00:008 Call Length | 00:00:00:010 | 00:00:00:008 ------------------------------ Test Terminated -------------------------------- ...i didn't beleive to SIPp and i went to FS console issuing status command to conferm the results. freeswitch@l01sipindir2.ot.hr> status API CALL [status()] output: UP 0 years, 0 days, 0 hours, 8 minutes, 13 seconds, 703 milliseconds, 971 microseconds 183382 session(s) since startup 1 session(s) 410/800 8000 session(s) max freeswitch@l01sipindir2.ot.hr> status API CALL [status()] output: UP 0 years, 0 days, 0 hours, 8 minutes, 15 seconds, 109 milliseconds, 891 microseconds 183944 session(s) since startup 1 session(s) 401/800 8000 session(s) max freeswitch@l01sipindir2.ot.hr> status API CALL [status()] output: UP 0 years, 0 days, 0 hours, 8 minutes, 16 seconds, 139 milliseconds, 412 microseconds 184356 session(s) since startup 2 session(s) 389/800 8000 session(s) max freeswitch@l01sipindir2.ot.hr> status API CALL [status()] output: UP 0 years, 0 days, 0 hours, 8 minutes, 17 seconds, 62 milliseconds, 16 microseconds 184717 session(s) since startup 6 session(s) 410/800 8000 session(s) max freeswitch@l01sipindir2.ot.hr> status API CALL [status()] output: UP 0 years, 0 days, 0 hours, 8 minutes, 35 seconds, 150 milliseconds, 253 microseconds 191959 session(s) since startup 1 session(s) 400/800 8000 session(s) max freeswitch@l01sipindir2.ot.hr> status API CALL [status()] output: UP 0 years, 0 days, 0 hours, 8 minutes, 36 seconds, 892 milliseconds, 672 microseconds 192657 session(s) since startup 1 session(s) 393/800 8000 session(s) max On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Dmitry Kadantsev <kadantsev.d@gmail.com>wrote:
Hi all,
is there same situation with FS for Windows? I mean 64bit is more preferable than 32bit, isn't it?
Any performance test on Win 32/64 were done?
-- Best regards, Dmitry Kadantsev
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Tihomir Culjaga <tculjaga@gmail.com>wrote:
intanto e il centos che si sta installando :)
grazie.
T.
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Giovanni Maruzzelli < gmaruzz@celliax.org> wrote:
netbook remix
joking! Server 64bit :-)
-gm
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Tihomir Culjaga<tculjaga@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Giovanny,
regarding ubuntu, did you mean 8.04 server or desktop ?
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Giovanni Maruzzelli < gmaruzz@celliax.org> wrote:
Definitely go for 64 bit OS.
If you want to be safe and sure, go for CentOS 5.2 64bit. Is the one used both for development and for heavy duty production.
Also Ubuntu 8.04 is good.
Other versions/distros are less used by the community.
Adding RAM and CPUs helps to scale up.
-gm
Sincerely,
Giovanni Maruzzelli Cell : +39-347-2665618
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Tihomir Culjaga<tculjaga@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Giovanni,
thanks for the tip... indeed the db files were heavily used
regardless
if i started freeswitch with nosql option (freeswitch -nosql)... FS was not writing anything into that files ... instead it was just accessing it.... This behaviour leads to a waste of 40% CPU time... waiting for other processes (mainly disk access) to finish!!!
I moved freeswitch/db/ to a ramdisk and the performance got a boost to 140 CPS with a CPU load of 80%. I was keeping the machine for a while (20 - 30 minutes) on that rate when i sow CPU suddenly went to 100% and FS becoming irresponsive :).
What can be wrong? What are the limits in CPU usage (50%, 60%, 70%, 80%...) we should not cross? What fine tuning do we need in order to asure a long high load run?
Also, I'm running 32-bit OS (debian 5) on a 64 bit CPU... does it have sense to move my OS to 64 bit? ... will FS gain more preformance ?... I mean will FS perofomr drastically better 20%+ ?
Tihomir.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Giovanni Maruzzelli <gmaruzz@celliax.org> wrote: > > Maybe your load comes from disk access? > > Try putting the sql and log directories on a ramdisk. > > OTH, > > -giovanni > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Tihomir Culjaga< tculjaga@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hello, > > > > i'm trying to use freeswitch as a redirecting server meaning FS has > > to > > receive an INVITE and according to some rules it will redirect calls > > to > > other destinations. > > > > > > CALLING_USER FREESWITCH > > SOMEWHERE > > > > INVITE -------------------------------> > > <------------------------------ 100 Trying > > <------------------------------ 302 Moved Temporary > > ACK -------------------------------> > > > > > > INVITE---------------------------------------------------------------------------------> > > > > > > > > Well, wverything works well except i have perfromance issues .... on > > my > > HW > > FS cannot do more than 40 CPS (INVITE answered by 302 Moved > > Temporary). > > When > > i increase the rate, FS starts delaying 302 response. Right at 50 CPS > > i > > see > > "calls" being build up in FS and the delay begining to grow. > > > > When i observe the machine, load average is almost nothing (load > > average: > > 1.41, 0.61, 0.60) CPU never goes to 100%, and i see only one thread > > taking > > most load... all others are just sitting there with 1-5 % CPU time. > > This looks to me as FS handles 302 messages in a single thread?!?! > > > > > > tculjaga@FS:/usr/local/freeswitch/conf/dialplan$ top -H > > > > top - 10:41:37 up 167 days, 20:42, 3 users, load average: 1.41, > > 0.61, > > 0.60 > > Tasks: 83 total, 2 running, 81 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie > > Cpu(s): 25.3%us, 1.5%sy, 0.0%ni, 30.3%id, 42.7%wa, 0.0%hi, > > 0.2%si, > > 0.0%st > > Mem: 2074520k total, 571244k used, 1503276k free, 259604k > > buffers > > Swap: 2650684k total, 3020k used, 2647664k free, 153868k > > cached > > > > PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ > > COMMAND > > 4814 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 38 1.0 3:10.29 > > freeswitch > > 4800 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 6 1.0 0:08.26 > > freeswitch > > 4798 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 R 5 1.0 0:24.46 > > freeswitch > > 4787 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 2 1.0 0:11.24 > > freeswitch > > 4794 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:11.42 > > freeswitch > > 4803 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:11.74 > > freeswitch > > 4788 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:02.96 > > freeswitch > > 4804 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:01.64 > > freeswitch > > 4807 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:01.68 > > freeswitch > > 4811 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:02.50 > > freeswitch > > > > > > > > cat /proc/cpuinfo > > processor : 0 > > vendor_id : GenuineIntel > > cpu family : 6 > > model : 15 > > model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 5140 @ 2.33GHz > > stepping : 6 > > cpu MHz : 2333.560 > > cache size : 4096 KB > > physical id : 0 > > siblings : 2 > > core id : 0 > > cpu cores : 2 > > apicid : 0 > > initial apicid : 0 > > fdiv_bug : no > > hlt_bug : no > > f00f_bug : no > > coma_bug : no > > fpu : yes > > fpu_exception : yes > > cpuid level : 10 > > wp : yes > > flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr > > pge > > mca > > cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe lm > > constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 > > ssse3 > > cx16 > > xtpr dca lahf_lm > > bogomips : 4670.78 > > clflush size : 64 > > power management: > > > > processor : 1 > > vendor_id : GenuineIntel > > cpu family : 6 > > model : 15 > > model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 5140 @ 2.33GHz > > stepping : 6 > > cpu MHz : 2333.560 > > cache size : 4096 KB > > physical id : 0 > > siblings : 2 > > core id : 1 > > cpu cores : 2 > > apicid : 1 > > initial apicid : 1 > > fdiv_bug : no > > hlt_bug : no > > f00f_bug : no > > coma_bug : no > > fpu : yes > > fpu_exception : yes > > cpuid level : 10 > > wp : yes > > flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr > > pge > > mca > > cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe lm > > constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 > > ssse3 > > cx16 > > xtpr dca lahf_lm > > bogomips : 4666.82 > > clflush size : 64 > > power management: > > > > > > > > uname -a > > Linux l01sipindir1 2.6.26-1-686 #1 SMP Sat Jan 10 18:29:31 UTC 2009 > > i686 > > GNU/Linux > > > > > > > > Of course, i've tuned the machine up > > > > ulimit -c unlimited > > ulimit -d unlimited > > ulimit -f unlimited > > ulimit -i unlimited > > ulimit -n 999999 > > ulimit -q unlimited > > ulimit -u unlimited > > ulimit -v unlimited > > ulimit -x unlimited > > ulimit -s 240 > > ulimit -l unlimited > > ulimit -a > > > > > > Started FS with minimum modules but still 40 CPS seems to be the > > limit. > > > > > > So, is there any way to improve performance? > > > > > > Tihomir. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Just for fun... Im personally interested how this holds up on Debian 5 - 64 bit.. Im more of a debian person... not a huge centos fan and it seems you had a pref for debian at first also so if you have the time to play, let us know how that goes :) surly its just the change to a 64 bit OS.... Jay On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:42 AM, Tihomir Culjaga <tculjaga@gmail.com> wrote:
Guys you made a monster!!
so, i moved the machine to 64bit CentOS 5.3... recompiled the latest trunk and did my tests again.
The old tests on 32bit debian 5 on the same hardware shown a CPS rate of 120 as 75 - 80% CPU.... and after some time on that 120 CPS rate the CPU goes to 100% without any chance FS recovers at all. New tests on 64bit CentOS shown a monster.... 400 CPS rate at 75% CPU.... during the tests FS was really stable and responsive... i placed few calls that went through as a charm :).
Also, i didn't optimize the machine at all ... as it is after CentOS install!.... not even db files are on ramdisk.
What did it really happen? .. did you guys change something in the trunk overnight or it is just moving to CentOS 64bit that boosted drastically?
Here are some details:
ÚnmonÄ12aÄÄÄÄÄÄ[H for help]ÄÄÄHostname=l01sipindir2ÄRefresh= 2secs ÄÄÄ19:17.48ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ³ CPU +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ³ ³100%-| | ³ ³ 95%-| | ³ ³ 90%-| | ³ ³ 85%-| | ³ ³ 80%-| | w s w www w s sw s s s ³ ³ 75%-| |ssssssssssssssssssssswssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss ³ ³ 70%-| +sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssUssssssssUsssUssssssssssUssssssssssss ³ ³ 65%-| |UUUUUsUsUUUUUUUUUUUUUsUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUsUUU ³ ³ 60%-| |UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU ³ ³ 55%-| |UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU ³ ³ 50%-| |UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU ³ ³ 45%-| |UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU ³ ³ 40%-| |UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUw ³ ³ 35%-| |UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUs ³ ³ 30%-| |UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU ³ ³ 25%-| |UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU ³ ³ 20%-| |UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU ³ ³ 15%-| |UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU ³ ³ 10%-| |UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU ³ ³ 5%-| |UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU ³ ³ +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ³ ³ CPU Utilisation ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄij ³ +-------------------------------------------------+ ³ ³CPU User% Sys% Wait% Idle|0 |25 |50 |75 100| ³ ³ 1 1.0 0.5 0.0 98.5|
| ³
³ 2 1.5 1.0 0.0 97.5|
| ³ ³ +-------------------------------------------------+ ³ ³Avg 1.2 0.5 0.0 98.3| | ³ ³ +-------------------------------------------------+ ³ ³ Disk I/O ÄÄÄÄÄ(/proc/diskstats)ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄall data is Kbytes per secondÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄij ³DiskName Busy Read WriteKB|0 |25 |50 |75 100| ³ ³iss/c0d0 0% 0.0 0.0| | ³ ³s/c0d0p1 0% 0.0 0.0|> | ³ ³s/c0d0p2 0% 0.0 0.0| | ³ ³dm-0 0% 0.0 0.0| | ³ ³dm-1 0% 0.0 0.0|> | ³
³ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄij
------------------------------ Scenario Screen -------- [1-9]: Change Screen -- Call-rate(length) Port Total-time Total-calls Remote-host 40.0(0 ms)/0.100s 5060 488.20 s 193555 10.4.4.252:5060(UDP)
402 new calls during 1.002 s period 0 ms scheduler resolution 3 calls (limit 4000) Peak was 53 calls, after 351 s 0 Running, 13216 Paused, 670 Woken up 0 dead call msg (discarded) 0 out-of-call msg (discarded) 3 open sockets
Messages Retrans Timeout Unexpected-Msg INVITE ----------> B-RTD1 193553 0 0 100 <---------- E-RTD1 193553 0 0 0 302 <---------- E-RTD2 193552 0 0 0 ACK ----------> 193552 0 ------ [+|-|*|/]: Adjust rate ---- [q]: Soft exit ---- [p]: Pause traffic -----
------------------------------ Scenario Screen -------- [1-9]: Change Screen -- Call-rate(length) Port Total-time Total-calls Remote-host 40.0(0 ms)/0.100s 5060 489.10 s 193917 10.4.4.252:5060(UDP)
362 new calls during 0.906 s period 1 ms scheduler resolution 2 calls (limit 4000) Peak was 53 calls, after 351 s 0 Running, 13215 Paused, 623 Woken up 0 dead call msg (discarded) 0 out-of-call msg (discarded) 3 open sockets
Messages Retrans Timeout Unexpected-Msg INVITE ----------> B-RTD1 193917 0 0 100 <---------- E-RTD1 193917 0 0 0 302 <---------- E-RTD2 193915 0 0 0 ACK ----------> 193915 0 ------------------------------ Test Terminated --------------------------------
----------------------------- Statistics Screen ------- [1-9]: Change Screen -- Start Time | 2009-08-26 19:09:34:575 1251306574.575684 Last Reset Time | 2009-08-26 19:17:42:779 1251307062.779468 Current Time | 2009-08-26 19:17:43:685 1251307063.685281
-------------------------+---------------------------+-------------------------- Counter Name | Periodic value | Cumulative value
-------------------------+---------------------------+-------------------------- Elapsed Time | 00:00:00:905 | 00:08:09:109 Call Rate | 400.000 cps | 396.470 cps
-------------------------+---------------------------+-------------------------- Incoming call created | 0 | 0 OutGoing call created | 362 | 193917 Total Call created | | 193917 Current Call | 2 |
-------------------------+---------------------------+-------------------------- Successful call | 363 | 193915 Failed call | 0 | 0
-------------------------+---------------------------+-------------------------- Response Time 1 | 00:00:00:001 | 00:00:00:000 Response Time 2 | 00:00:00:010 | 00:00:00:008 Call Length | 00:00:00:010 | 00:00:00:008 ------------------------------ Test Terminated --------------------------------
...i didn't beleive to SIPp and i went to FS console issuing status command to conferm the results.
freeswitch@l01sipindir2.ot.hr> status API CALL [status()] output: UP 0 years, 0 days, 0 hours, 8 minutes, 13 seconds, 703 milliseconds, 971 microseconds 183382 session(s) since startup 1 session(s) 410/800 8000 session(s) max
freeswitch@l01sipindir2.ot.hr> status API CALL [status()] output: UP 0 years, 0 days, 0 hours, 8 minutes, 15 seconds, 109 milliseconds, 891 microseconds 183944 session(s) since startup 1 session(s) 401/800 8000 session(s) max
freeswitch@l01sipindir2.ot.hr> status API CALL [status()] output: UP 0 years, 0 days, 0 hours, 8 minutes, 16 seconds, 139 milliseconds, 412 microseconds 184356 session(s) since startup 2 session(s) 389/800 8000 session(s) max
freeswitch@l01sipindir2.ot.hr> status API CALL [status()] output: UP 0 years, 0 days, 0 hours, 8 minutes, 17 seconds, 62 milliseconds, 16 microseconds 184717 session(s) since startup 6 session(s) 410/800 8000 session(s) max
freeswitch@l01sipindir2.ot.hr> status API CALL [status()] output: UP 0 years, 0 days, 0 hours, 8 minutes, 35 seconds, 150 milliseconds, 253 microseconds 191959 session(s) since startup 1 session(s) 400/800 8000 session(s) max
freeswitch@l01sipindir2.ot.hr> status API CALL [status()] output: UP 0 years, 0 days, 0 hours, 8 minutes, 36 seconds, 892 milliseconds, 672 microseconds 192657 session(s) since startup 1 session(s) 393/800 8000 session(s) max
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Dmitry Kadantsev <kadantsev.d@gmail.com>wrote:
Hi all,
is there same situation with FS for Windows? I mean 64bit is more preferable than 32bit, isn't it?
Any performance test on Win 32/64 were done?
-- Best regards, Dmitry Kadantsev
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Tihomir Culjaga <tculjaga@gmail.com>wrote:
intanto e il centos che si sta installando :)
grazie.
T.
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Giovanni Maruzzelli < gmaruzz@celliax.org> wrote:
netbook remix
joking! Server 64bit :-)
-gm
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Tihomir Culjaga<tculjaga@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Giovanny,
regarding ubuntu, did you mean 8.04 server or desktop ?
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Giovanni Maruzzelli < gmaruzz@celliax.org> wrote:
Definitely go for 64 bit OS.
If you want to be safe and sure, go for CentOS 5.2 64bit. Is the one used both for development and for heavy duty production.
Also Ubuntu 8.04 is good.
Other versions/distros are less used by the community.
Adding RAM and CPUs helps to scale up.
-gm
Sincerely,
Giovanni Maruzzelli Cell : +39-347-2665618
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Tihomir Culjaga<tculjaga@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey Giovanni, > > thanks for the tip... indeed the db files were heavily used
regardless
> if i > started freeswitch with nosql option (freeswitch -nosql)... FS was not > writing anything into that files ... instead it was just accessing > it.... > This behaviour leads to a waste of 40% CPU time... waiting for other > processes (mainly disk access) to finish!!! > > I moved freeswitch/db/ to a ramdisk and the performance got a boost to > 140 > CPS with a CPU load of 80%. I was keeping the machine for a while (20 - > 30 > minutes) on that rate when i sow CPU suddenly went to 100% and FS > becoming > irresponsive :). > > > What can be wrong? > What are the limits in CPU usage (50%, 60%, 70%, 80%...) we should not > cross? > What fine tuning do we need in order to asure a long high load run? > > > > Also, I'm running 32-bit OS (debian 5) on a 64 bit CPU... does it have > sense > to move my OS to 64 bit? ... will FS gain more preformance ?... I mean > will > FS perofomr drastically better 20%+ ? > > > Tihomir. > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Giovanni Maruzzelli > <gmaruzz@celliax.org> > wrote: >> >> Maybe your load comes from disk access? >> >> Try putting the sql and log directories on a ramdisk. >> >> OTH, >> >> -giovanni >> >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Tihomir Culjaga< tculjaga@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > Hello, >> > >> > i'm trying to use freeswitch as a redirecting server meaning FS has >> > to >> > receive an INVITE and according to some rules it will redirect calls >> > to >> > other destinations. >> > >> > >> > CALLING_USER FREESWITCH >> > SOMEWHERE >> > >> > INVITE -------------------------------> >> > <------------------------------ 100 Trying >> > <------------------------------ 302 Moved Temporary >> > ACK -------------------------------> >> > >> > >> > INVITE---------------------------------------------------------------------------------> >> > >> > >> > >> > Well, wverything works well except i have perfromance issues .... on >> > my >> > HW >> > FS cannot do more than 40 CPS (INVITE answered by 302 Moved >> > Temporary). >> > When >> > i increase the rate, FS starts delaying 302 response. Right at 50 CPS >> > i >> > see >> > "calls" being build up in FS and the delay begining to grow. >> > >> > When i observe the machine, load average is almost nothing (load >> > average: >> > 1.41, 0.61, 0.60) CPU never goes to 100%, and i see only one thread >> > taking >> > most load... all others are just sitting there with 1-5 % CPU time. >> > This looks to me as FS handles 302 messages in a single thread?!?! >> > >> > >> > tculjaga@FS:/usr/local/freeswitch/conf/dialplan$ top -H >> > >> > top - 10:41:37 up 167 days, 20:42, 3 users, load average: 1.41, >> > 0.61, >> > 0.60 >> > Tasks: 83 total, 2 running, 81 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie >> > Cpu(s): 25.3%us, 1.5%sy, 0.0%ni, 30.3%id, 42.7%wa, 0.0%hi, >> > 0.2%si, >> > 0.0%st >> > Mem: 2074520k total, 571244k used, 1503276k free, 259604k >> > buffers >> > Swap: 2650684k total, 3020k used, 2647664k free, 153868k >> > cached >> > >> > PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ >> > COMMAND >> > 4814 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 38 1.0 3:10.29 >> > freeswitch >> > 4800 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 6 1.0 0:08.26 >> > freeswitch >> > 4798 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 R 5 1.0 0:24.46 >> > freeswitch >> > 4787 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 2 1.0 0:11.24 >> > freeswitch >> > 4794 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:11.42 >> > freeswitch >> > 4803 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:11.74 >> > freeswitch >> > 4788 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:02.96 >> > freeswitch >> > 4804 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:01.64 >> > freeswitch >> > 4807 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:01.68 >> > freeswitch >> > 4811 root 20 0 34188 20m 3780 S 1 1.0 0:02.50 >> > freeswitch >> > >> > >> > >> > cat /proc/cpuinfo >> > processor : 0 >> > vendor_id : GenuineIntel >> > cpu family : 6 >> > model : 15 >> > model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 5140 @ 2.33GHz >> > stepping : 6 >> > cpu MHz : 2333.560 >> > cache size : 4096 KB >> > physical id : 0 >> > siblings : 2 >> > core id : 0 >> > cpu cores : 2 >> > apicid : 0 >> > initial apicid : 0 >> > fdiv_bug : no >> > hlt_bug : no >> > f00f_bug : no >> > coma_bug : no >> > fpu : yes >> > fpu_exception : yes >> > cpuid level : 10 >> > wp : yes >> > flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr >> > pge >> > mca >> > cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe lm >> > constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 >> > ssse3 >> > cx16 >> > xtpr dca lahf_lm >> > bogomips : 4670.78 >> > clflush size : 64 >> > power management: >> > >> > processor : 1 >> > vendor_id : GenuineIntel >> > cpu family : 6 >> > model : 15 >> > model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 5140 @ 2.33GHz >> > stepping : 6 >> > cpu MHz : 2333.560 >> > cache size : 4096 KB >> > physical id : 0 >> > siblings : 2 >> > core id : 1 >> > cpu cores : 2 >> > apicid : 1 >> > initial apicid : 1 >> > fdiv_bug : no >> > hlt_bug : no >> > f00f_bug : no >> > coma_bug : no >> > fpu : yes >> > fpu_exception : yes >> > cpuid level : 10 >> > wp : yes >> > flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr >> > pge >> > mca >> > cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe lm >> > constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts pni monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 >> > ssse3 >> > cx16 >> > xtpr dca lahf_lm >> > bogomips : 4666.82 >> > clflush size : 64 >> > power management: >> > >> > >> > >> > uname -a >> > Linux l01sipindir1 2.6.26-1-686 #1 SMP Sat Jan 10 18:29:31 UTC 2009 >> > i686 >> > GNU/Linux >> > >> > >> > >> > Of course, i've tuned the machine up >> > >> > ulimit -c unlimited >> > ulimit -d unlimited >> > ulimit -f unlimited >> > ulimit -i unlimited >> > ulimit -n 999999 >> > ulimit -q unlimited >> > ulimit -u unlimited >> > ulimit -v unlimited >> > ulimit -x unlimited >> > ulimit -s 240 >> > ulimit -l unlimited >> > ulimit -a >> > >> > >> > Started FS with minimum modules but still 40 CPS seems to be the >> > limit. >> > >> > >> > So, is there any way to improve performance? >> > >> > >> > Tihomir. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Sincerely Jay
Also, I'm running 32-bit OS (debian 5) on a 64 bit CPU... does it have sense to move my OS to 64 bit? ... will FS gain more preformance ?... I mean will FS perofomr drastically better 20%+ ?
If you really want to get on the same page as the developers then get the 64bit CentOS 5.3 loaded on your machine. Also, we've seen reports of really weird things happening when people run 32bit OS on 64bit hardware. That's a big no-no. :) Let us know how it goes. -MC
well :) ... this is something we are going to change tomorrow.... of course will let you posted. T. On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Michael Collins <msc@freeswitch.org> wrote:
Also, I'm running 32-bit OS (debian 5) on a 64 bit CPU... does it have
sense to move my OS to 64 bit? ... will FS gain more preformance ?... I mean will FS perofomr drastically better 20%+ ?
If you really want to get on the same page as the developers then get the 64bit CentOS 5.3 loaded on your machine. Also, we've seen reports of really weird things happening when people run 32bit OS on 64bit hardware. That's a big no-no. :)
Let us know how it goes. -MC
_______________________________________________ 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 (9)
-
Anthony Minessale
-
Dmitry Kadantsev
-
Giovanni Maruzzelli
-
jay binks
-
Jay Binks
-
Mathieu Rene
-
Michael Collins
-
Michael Jerris
-
Tihomir Culjaga