[Freeswitch-users] FreeSwitch - Performance issues

Tahir Almas tahir at ictinnovations.com
Thu Aug 20 08:55:26 MSD 2015


Try  testing with CentOS  6.x  or  Debian  distribution sutiable  for
server  type  applications

regards

*Tahir Almas*

Managing Partner
ICT Innovations
http://www.ictinnovations.com
Leveraging open source in ICT



On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Michael Jerris <mike at jerris.com> wrote:

> There are multiple known issues with Ubuntu 12.04.  We reccomend Debian 8
> Jessie.
>
>
> On Friday, August 14, 2015, Shaun Stokes <shaun.stokes at itec-support.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> We’re experiencing performance issues with FreeSwitch, our target is 500
>> concurrent sessions, but at the moment this starts to bottleneck around 30.
>>
>>
>>
>> Host system:
>>
>> Windows Server 2012 Hyper-V Host
>>
>> AMD Opteron 4386 (2 processors) – 16 cores total
>>
>> 128GB DDR3
>>
>> 2TB RAID 5 (700MB/s tested read and write throughput)
>>
>>
>>
>> FreeSwitch Virtual Machine:
>>
>> FreeSwitch 1.4.15
>>
>> Ubuntu 12.04 LTS
>>
>> 16 Virtual cores (high priority)
>>
>> 2GB RAM (would assign more but FreeSwitch never seems to use much)
>>
>> 500GB HD (on VHDX)
>>
>>
>>
>> After around 30 concurrent sessions we begin to see CPU spikes almost
>> every time a new call comes in, as the sessions increase the size and
>> frequency of the CPU spikes also increase. The system seems to be able to
>> sit comfortably with over 100 concurrent sessions and 80% idle CPU,
>> providing we don’t have any new calls hitting the platform. The spikes are
>> causing audio (RTP) to stutter or in some cases drop completely for a few
>> seconds.
>>
>>
>>
>> The FreeSwitch spikes are occurring on all 16 cores, we have been
>> monitoring the system using htop and mpstat.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is an example of when we receive an inbound call while we have 34
>> concurrent sessions:
>>
>> 14:26:04     CPU    %usr   %nice    %sys %iowait    %irq   %soft  %steal
>> %guest   %idle
>>
>> 14:26:05     all    1.67    0.00   27.34    0.00    0.25    0.00
>> 0.00    0.00   70.74
>>
>> 14:26:05       0    1.00    0.00   28.00    0.00    0.00    0.00
>> 0.00    0.00   71.00
>>
>> 14:26:05       1    0.99    0.00   26.73    0.00    0.00    0.00
>> 0.00    0.00   72.28
>>
>> 14:26:05       2    0.99    0.00   26.73    0.00    0.00    0.00
>> 0.00    0.00   72.28
>>
>> 14:26:05       3    3.92    0.00   26.47    0.00    0.00    0.00
>> 0.00    0.00   69.61
>>
>> 14:26:05       4    0.99    0.00   25.74    0.00    1.98    0.00
>> 0.00    0.00   71.29
>>
>> 14:26:05       5    0.99    0.00   26.73    0.00    0.99    0.00
>> 0.00    0.00   71.29
>>
>> 14:26:05       6    0.00    0.00   26.47    0.00    0.98    0.00
>> 0.00    0.00   72.55
>>
>> 14:26:05       7    0.00    0.00   26.73    0.00    0.00    0.00
>>  0.00    0.00   73.27
>>
>> 14:26:05       8    3.96    0.00   27.72    0.00    0.00    0.00
>> 0.00    0.00   68.32
>>
>> 14:26:05       9    2.00    0.00   27.00    0.00    0.00    0.00
>> 0.00    0.00   71.00
>>
>> 14:26:05      10    6.00    0.00   32.00    0.00    0.00    0.00
>> 0.00    0.00   62.00
>>
>> 14:26:05      11    1.96    0.00   27.45    0.00    0.00    0.00
>> 0.00    0.00   70.59
>>
>> 14:26:05      12    0.99    0.00   26.73    0.00    0.00    0.00
>> 0.00    0.00   72.28
>>
>> 14:26:05      13    1.00    0.00   28.00    0.00    0.00    0.00
>> 0.00    0.00   71.00
>>
>> 14:26:05      14    0.00    0.00   27.00    0.00    0.00    0.00
>> 0.00    0.00   73.00
>>
>>
>>
>> This is when the system is not receiving an inbound call but is sitting
>> comfortably at 34 concurrent sessions:
>>
>> 14:25:57     CPU    %usr   %nice    %sys %iowait    %irq   %soft  %steal
>> %guest   %idle
>>
>> 14:25:58     all    0.87    0.00    0.62    0.00    0.12    0.00
>> 0.00    0.00   98.39
>>
>> 14:25:58       0    0.99    0.00    0.99    0.00    0.00    0.00
>> 0.00    0.00   98.02
>>
>> 14:25:58       1    0.99    0.00    0.99    0.00    0.00    0.00
>> 0.00    0.00   98.02
>>
>> 14:25:58       2    0.98    0.00    0.98    0.00    0.00    0.00
>> 0.00    0.00   98.04
>>
>> 14:25:58       3    0.00    0.00    0.99    0.00    0.00    0.00
>> 0.00    0.00   99.01
>>
>> 14:25:58       4    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    1.98    0.00
>> 0.00    0.00   98.02
>>
>> 14:25:58       5    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.99    0.00
>> 0.00    0.00   99.01
>>
>> 14:25:58       6    0.00    0.00    0.99    0.00    0.00    0.00
>> 0.00    0.00   99.01
>>
>> 14:25:58       7    0.00    0.00    0.99    0.00    0.00    0.00
>> 0.00    0.00   99.01
>>
>> 14:25:58       8    5.00    0.00    1.00    0.00    0.00    0.00
>> 0.00    0.00   94.00
>>
>> 14:25:58       9    1.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00
>> 0.00    0.00   99.00
>>
>> 14:25:58      10    1.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00
>> 0.00    0.00   99.00
>>
>> 14:25:58      11    0.99    0.00    0.99    0.00    0.00    0.00
>> 0.00    0.00   98.02
>>
>> 14:25:58      12    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00
>> 0.00    0.00  100.00
>>
>> 14:25:58      13    1.98    0.00    0.99    0.00    0.00    0.00
>> 0.00    0.00   97.03
>>
>> 14:25:58      14    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00
>> 0.00    0.00  100.00
>>
>> 14:25:58      15    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00
>> 0.00    0.00  100.00
>>
>>
>>
>> We’re using FreeSwitch in multi-tenant mode, we have tried dedicating a
>> single VM for one tenancy but still experience the issue. My assumption has
>> been that this will be due to the dialplan, I’ve optimized this slightly by
>> writing LUA scripts to handle some of the inbound calls this appears to
>> take away some of the load but we’re still using the internal dialplans for
>> each tenancy (tenancy dialplans have an average of 300 entries).
>>
>>
>>
>> We are using the following arguments when running FreeSwitch:
>>
>> -rp –nc –nonat
>>
>>
>>
>> I’ve seen another post which says we should operate FreeSwitch in High
>> Performance mode using –hp but can’t find anything information about this,
>> is this still a valid argument to use with FreeSwitch?
>>
>>
>>
>> Has anyone experienced similar performance issues before or have any
>> advice?
>>
>>
>>
>> Hope someone may be able help.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Shaun
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> This message has been checked for all known viruses by MessageLabs Virus
>> Scanning Service.
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services:
> consulting at freeswitch.org
> http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
>
> Official FreeSWITCH Sites
> http://www.freeswitch.org
> http://confluence.freeswitch.org
> http://www.cluecon.com
>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freeswitch.org/pipermail/freeswitch-users/attachments/20150819/1cf22b12/attachment.html 


Join us at ClueCon 2016 Aug 8-12, 2016
More information about the FreeSWITCH-users mailing list