[Freeswitch-users] Freeswitch Long Run

[Steven Ayre]

240 is recommended on 32bit (otherwise you get 8MB of address space
allocated to each thread and can run out of memory if you have many
threads)

AFAIK you won't have any problems with that setting on 64bit either,
although it's not required then since the address space is far far
larger so you're not likely to run out.

Anthony - is there any reason to either stick to 240 or avoid it on 64bit?

-Steve



On 15 November 2010 16:12, Ahmed Bhaila <ahmed.ajmal at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> Ok,so I will get the latest build and get rid of hp, As for the limit you
> have recommended a stack size of 240 and I was following the recommended
> ulimit settings mentioned on the wiki which is 8192.I am on a 64-bit machine
> with 8 gigs of RAM running CentOS 5.5, so what size would you recommend here
> 240 or 8192?
>
> - ahmed
>
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Anthony Minessale
> <anthony.minessale at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> yes,
>>
>> do not use -hp <-- never swap and use more ram or -waste <--- hmm what
>> does waste mean
>> if you used the recommended ulimit -s 240 you would not need -waste for
>> sure.
>>
>> use latest build on a 64 bit version of CentOS 5.3 and do not generate
>> artificial load with misconfigured load testing tools.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 4:28 AM, Ahmed Bhaila <ahmed.ajmal at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hello
>> >
>> > Has anyone have experience running Freeswitch for longer periods
>> > preferably
>> > more than 24 hrs with average connected calls around 500 at any given
>> > time?
>> > I have tried this and the problem I am seeing is that Freeswitch seems
>> > to
>> > use up all the physical memory after which the system goes unstable and
>> > doesnt accept any calls I also see a lot of dropped called after that. I
>> > have two test machines which I have started with the recommended ulimit
>> > settings (described in the wiki) and using -hp and -waste as the startup
>> > params. Both machines are Intel Xeon Quad Core with 8 gigs of RAM and
>> > running CentOS. The first machine is using the latest GIT-HEAD while the
>> > second machine is using Freeswitch version 1.0.4 (tried with 1.0.6 too
>> > but
>> > didnt help). Also, this is a production level scenario where I have
>> > customers sending in real traffic (signaling + media). Any
>> > recommendations
>> > and/or suggestions?
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > Ahmed
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
>> > FreeSWITCH-users at 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 at hotmail.com
>> GTALK/JABBER/PAYPAL:anthony.minessale at gmail.com
>> IRC: irc.freenode.net #freeswitch
>>
>> FreeSWITCH Developer Conference
>> sip:888 at conference.freeswitch.org
>> googletalk:conf+888 at conference.freeswitch.org
>> pstn:+19193869900
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
>> FreeSWITCH-users at 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 at lists.freeswitch.org
> http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
> UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
> http://www.freeswitch.org
>
>