[Freeswitch-users] Performance bottleneck
uv at talknet.com.au
Tue Aug 12 10:53:14 PDT 2008
Turning the presence off did the trick, although it would be important (to
me, at least) to understand why as it changes the performance significantly.
Is the presence mechanism waiting for some response from the network?
I’m assuming it’s waiting on something external because I couldn’t find any
From: freeswitch-users-bounces at lists.freeswitch.org
[mailto:freeswitch-users-bounces at lists.freeswitch.org] On Behalf Of Anthony
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 12:55 AM
To: freeswitch-users at lists.freeswitch.org
Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] Performance bottleneck
9996 is not a good test extension because it does not generate any audio
unless it gets some.
9998 that generates a tone or make up an ext that plays a file is a better
Processing of the sip calls can be delayed by the presence stuff which is
very intensive, you can try turning it off and see if you get more calls.
Also you should compare it to what happens with the test exten first in the
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:58 AM, UV <uv at talknet.com.au> wrote:
I'm trying to determine the FS resource bottleneck when operating under load
(in windows environment), but can't get the FS to load for some unseen
FS environment (a weak PC on purpose):
CPU 2x Intel Pentium 4 3GHz
RAM 2x 512MB DDR II RAM
Chipset - Intel E7221 (Copper River) chipset ICH6R + FWH + BCM5721
LAN 1x Broadcom Giga LAN
Windows 2003 Server – Service pack 2
FS version 9235
Running Release build on highest priority
A different machine running sipP
Running rtp_echo load, 50 cps, limit of 1000 calls, 30sec call duration,
extension 9996 (echo test):
sipp -rtp_echo -r 50 -l 1000 -d 30000 -s 9996 -sf auc.xml -mp 25000 -i
192.168.1.1 -mi 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.2
Test ran for 9.5 hours
Total of 48828 calls - all successful
No timeouts, retransmissions or unexpected messages.
Peak was 1003 calls after 4563 seconds (actual 0.2 cps)
Total of 1448750 RTP packets
Average response time: 11min 21 seconds
CPU usage 8% ~ 21%. Average 11%.
Started with 26,000KB RAM, 27,660KB VM, 25 threads
Peak at 136,000KB RAM,,367,004KB VM, 1024 threads
Ended with 88,220KB RAM, 141,684KB VM, 24 threads
Disk usage wasn't monitored.
My question is what is slowing the response time so much but keeps the CPU
Following Patrick Grondin's post from 17-Jul-08, I intentionally didn't
change the default dialplan as I'm trying to load up the CPU.
Freeswitch-users mailing list
Freeswitch-users at lists.freeswitch.org
Anthony Minessale II
MSN:anthony_minessale at hotmail.com
<mailto:MSN%3Aanthony_minessale at hotmail.com>
GTALK/JABBER/PAYPAL:anthony.minessale at gmail.com
<mailto:PAYPAL%3Aanthony.minessale at gmail.com>
IRC: irc.freenode.net #freeswitch
FreeSWITCH Developer Conference
sip:888 at conference.freeswitch.org
<mailto:sip%3A888 at conference.freeswitch.org>
iax:guest at conference.freeswitch.org/888
googletalk:conf+888 at conference.freeswitch.org
<mailto:googletalk%3Aconf%2B888 at conference.freeswitch.org>
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.1/1605 - Release Date: 11/08/2008
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the FreeSWITCH-users