[Freeswitch-users] What's better Unix ro Windows? LOL
ifoundthetao at gmail.com
Thu Jul 26 07:03:54 MSD 2012
Typically, when you're working with Linux, and in this case CentOS
Linux, you can get into the nitty gritty with "relative" ease. CentOS
is an OS on a conservative release schedule (with CentOS 6 to be EOL'ed
in 2020). Which means, while bug-fixes and patches and updates are
implemented, newer features generally aren't. So what that does, is
offer you a very predictable platform on which you can run your system.
Practical, predictable, and when set up properly, pretty low for
With CentOS, I'm typically "Go CLI or go home". I also don't set up
email on these servers, things which heavily poll will bog down your
performance. This also adds a learning curve, if you're not used to
working with the CLI (command line interface).
I'd also like to piggy-back onto what Gabriel said, but in a different
light. If you're working with a customer base, you really want to make
sure you know what you're doing if it hits the fan. For instance, if
you set up a funky iptables rule which won't allow anything through, or
something along those lines. Not that it should (or would) direct you
away from Linux for your FS environment, it's just something to be aware of.
That being said, I think that FreeBSD would be the best bang for your
buck. A verrry rough comparison of Linux vs BSD would be: Linux is
"home grown", while BSD is "engineered".
'We who cut mere stones must always be envisioning cathedrals.'
Quarry Worker's Creed
On 7/25/2012 9:49 PM, Gabriel Gunderson wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Sean Devoy <sdevoy at bizfocused.com> wrote:
>> Their tech support is adamant that it can handle up 12 CONCURRENT CALLS at
>> the base configuration.
> That's a pretty low number of concurrent calls. I have no reason to
> disbelieve him.
>> My belief is that the “slim profile” of Centos will allow FS to handle
>> greater load on a given hardware profile than could be handled by FS on
>> Windows with the same hardware. I would like to AVOID the issues of
>> security for this discussion, I firmly believe that you will provide better
>> security on the platform that you understand the best. Let’s just talk RAM,
>> MIPS, NICs and FS performance and other issues I might be missing.
> The CentOS install will require less overhead for the OS when compared
> to Windows. However, with a beefy box, it wouldn't even matter. FS is
> said to run nicely on Windows and there is no doubt that it performs
> well on Linux. I would only recommend Linux to someone who already
> knows Windows when dealing with *minimally* configured servers. In
> those situations, it becomes obvious (to me) that Linux is the better
>> Should a Windows guy go with FS on Windows or do you really get more bang
>> for your buck in a Unix environment?
> Generally speaking, yes. More bang for your buck.
> I would go with what makes you feel comfortable for now. But, I would
> also encourage you to deepen your Linux know-how. All of the power,
> flexibility, stability, hackability, malleability, and reliability
> that you find in FreeSWITCH can often be found for free in the Linux
> ecosystem. You can expect to invest some time learning it --just like
> learning FreeSWITCH took time (heck, you've been learning Windows for
> nearly 25 years).
> Summary: go with what you feel good about today. Don't cheat yourself
> by shying away from Linux tomorrow.
> Good luck,
> Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services:
> consulting at freeswitch.org
> Official FreeSWITCH Sites
> Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
> FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
> FreeSWITCH-users at lists.freeswitch.org
Join us at ClueCon 2011 Aug 9-11, 2011
More information about the FreeSWITCH-users