While trying to remain equidistant:
On 11/22/06, Klaus Darilion <klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at> wrote:
Jiri Kuthan wrote:
Hi Daniel,
thank you for your speech. I do not wish to discourage you in your
enthusiasm,
but at the same moment I prefer to rely on
accurate measurements and not
to
spend time on undermining their results or
relevance in a derogative
way. The data
shows quite clearly the performance of the
underlying "engine", the
stack,
which is part of every server's doing and has
*inherent* impact on the
overall
performance and consequently scalability in
whatever setup you have
(unless the
setup relies on some underperforming techniques).
That's what it is.
Yes - tm performance is fine, but from my practical experience external
applications (database lookups, DNS lookups ...) are the real
limitations. Maybe DNS lookups are not a bottleneck anymore in ser (due
to caching), but this also only works for already cached results.
You are right, but these bottle necks affect both projects. I wouldn't
count it as a discriminator. Or do you see improvements in either project in
the way they access the DB at runtime? I know that OpenSER loads (only?)
faster.
Let me compare with cars. ser is the much more fast car then openser,
but with openser I can drive the shortest route
whereas with ser I had
to drive weird routes because of missing functions.
I believe that naming such functionality would help in this kind of
sessions. (I have my wish list for both, as well.)
But I'm still not sure whether there got to be an open feature list and a
roadmap for SER.
Probably this is
getting better with the select framework in Ottendorf
- if only I could
understand it.
I find it pretty easy to use, but I join you in denouncing that the
documentation is lagging behind, something that becomes chronic for SER; the
only thing I found is the mentioning under "Attribute-value pairs and
selects" and I know for sure there is more to be said, not so intuitive.
WL.
regards
Klaus
Other than that, I have not really seen enough
*facts* in your later
off-topic
paragraphs (regarding reliability, stability,
airplanes, misleading and
non-applicable suggestions for stateles forwarding) to provide grounds
for
a debate with some tangible result -- hope you
don't mind I don't join.
You really cannot compare oranges to apples without loss of substance.
I mean doing arbitrarily underperforming network design can perfectly
hide
underperforming software but that's not
excuse for the latter.
-jiri
At 23:48 21/11/2006, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
> I love such "independent" and "very very useful" tests ... one
selected
the versions he liked, latest development of ser with latest stable
version
of openser, the details about testing scenarios are pretty limited. However
these details are very very insignificant, really.
>
> What matters is this particular case: what you tested is useless and
someone
can better implement a tiny kernel module to perform same job much
faster that will make openser/ser trashed instantly if that is their only
usage. More important are the performances in real world cases. I am not
going to do comparison tests and reveal numbers, I will let you do and hope
make the results available.
>
> I will exemplify with just two common use cases:
> A) ITSP where usrloc is required - to get the throughput from your
tests one
needs to have over million of online users. Let me know how SER is
doing with loading them, I can bet that it takes several minutes to start
(so service down for a significat time) and lot to lookup a record
afterwards, do not forget to mention required memory. Then we will see if
the forwarding throughput is the bottleneck.
> B) carrier - heavy accounting needed - take
the latest cvs snapshots
and test it, look at flexibility in same time and see if
the balance of
throughput and features is satisfactory. Do not forget that behind database
should be redundant for a reliable accounting storage.
>
> My conclusion and the point I wanted to underline is that forwarding is
not
the bottleneck by far and so far in real-world deployments -- or at
least nobody reported in openser mailing lists. Once it will be, for sure
there will be effort and focus to optimize it. I don't even bother to check
the scenarios, environment and test results you had, because makes no sense
today.
>
> It is more important to look at the results gave, for example, here by
an
independent party:
>
http://openser.org/pipermail/users/2006-November/007777.html
>
> With a real config and clustering system the performance of a box was
300calls
per second -- having at least 5 database accesses!!!. If you need
double you can add one more hardware, without extra configuration overhead,
just plug and play. And that is stable version of OpenSER since July this
year (btw, for those who keep saying that OpenSER does not focus on
stability, just check the CVS and see the number of bugs encountered with
this release, maybe you can change your opinion), and you can have a safe
environment distributed geographically where each hardware can undertake the
traffic from the others on the fly. With single box crashing because of
different independent reasons (hardware failure, power outages ...) you get
no service ... with three boxes you can serve huge number of active
subscribers in peak hours and have failover support, so service availability
100%. I am sure most of the people look now how to build reliable platforms
that scale very easy and can
be distributed around the world, with a bunch of useful features -- simple
first line replacement is not the business case for VoIP anymore.
>
> We didn't try at OpenSER to get a airplane when we have to drive city
streets, we looked to get feature rich and reliable application for its use
cases. I would propose to have focus on making own applications better than
trying to show the other one is worse.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
> PS. You can use stateless forwarding to get even better results, the
usefulness will be the same.
>
> On 11/21/06 12:30, Jiri Kuthan wrote:
>> Regarding the technical discussion, here are some hard numbers which
show
>> how SER stack outperforms derivative
work. Forwarding throughput is
clearly
>> several times better under stress and
consequently, variation of
response
>> delay is rather stable.
>>
>>
>>>
http://www.iptel.org/~vku/performance/tm.serXopenser.pulpuk/
>>>
>>
>> -jiri
>>
>>
>> At 21:16 09/11/2006, Rao Ramaratnamma wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Weiter,
>>>
>>> Yeah, I have been trying to limit myself to technical observations
too, but the governance aspect is somewhat interesting too as a hint for
future development, even though I guess even this is much more confusing
than the technical ones. I have investigated, both projects have their firms
with them that pursue their commercial interests which creates a risk of
possibly departing from the public interest, like with redhat. From this
angle they look quite similar. But if any worries me just a little bit more
than openser. Appearance at commercial shows on the "open" side versus
technical event on the "net" side if I take your BSD parallel, marketing
"open" webpage accusing "net" version bad, hiding root commerical
sponsors
on the "open" webpage, this could be signs for a redhat-like doubleedged
sword. Hopefully I am oversensing because I mean it is natural that
everybody has SOME interest, but indisputably folks on both sides have done
good work, but same indisputably m
ore TRANSPARENCY would be helpful for both projects so that users can be
less investigative.
>>>
>>> But I agree the technical comparison you suggest will be very useful
if not most useful. This is what I am eventually upto. Anything folks have
to tell in this topic is most welcome like the retransmission timers in
subject or user loading.
>>>
>>> rr
>>>
>>> disconcerted by the fact that the more I know the more I am confused
and determined to get over the learning curve quickly. also excuse the abuse
I crossposted again but I think cross interrogation is a bit painful but the
more effective :-)
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>> From: Weiter Leiter <bp4mls(a)googlemail.com>
>>> To: Kim Il <kim_il_s(a)yahoo.com>
>>> Cc: users(a)openser.org
>>> Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2006 1:42:29 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Fw: [Users] TM : retransmission timers
>>>
>>> Common user barely has time to meet his boss requirements, rather
than
playing around with different scenarios, platforms, environments.
>>> I only read one email where Daniel
stated that OpenSER now performs a
whole much better while loading users from
database. SER guys put no figure
out yet, neither bare numbers nor comparisons. I'm just really curious to
see how both servers perform, that's all.
>>> Even though I must maintain my SER, I
kinda like OpenSER's faster
releases and developers' responsiveness (that I
shamelessly exploit for the
common code left there :-), which is pretty much nonexistent with iptel (at
least this is the general belief here at OpenSER). But about this I'll
probably have to fight on SER's mailing list. I still wish that one day I
won't have to compare features; heck, NetSER and FreeSER are still available
;-).
>>> WL.
>>>
>>> PS. Maybe regretfully, I haven't seen any iptel booth at von this
year, while OpenSER guys put up a nice show. My congrats.
>>>
>>> On 11/9/06, Kim Il
<<mailto:kim_il_s@yahoo.com>kim_il_s@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>>> I can see what you are hinting at,
but I guess that the users are the
unbiased party that should do the judgment and
not the parties who have
something to gain.
>>> cheers
>>>
>>> Weiter Leiter
<<mailto:bp4mls@googlemail.com>bp4mls@googlemail.com>
wrote:
>>> This features comparisons are not to
last for too long, some
performance comparisons would also be nice. After all,
there are plenty of
UA-level stacks out there. At least now that both projects get to have
stable releases after forking and some core functionality remained shared. I
wonder what "unbiased" organization will take up the challenge. :-)
>>> On 11/8/06, Kim Il
<<mailto:kim_il_s@yahoo.com> kim_il_s(a)yahoo.com >
wrote:
>>> Mike,
>>> this is a really good start and we should collect these things so as
to help the community to take the right choice. I would also suggest that
what ever ground breaking issues we list we stay at the functional level (I
do not think anyone is helped by using a description containing "allowing
carrier grade platforms" and similar marketing phrases). cheers
>>>
>>>
>>> {truncated because too large}
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sponsored Link Talk more and pay less. Vonage can save you up to $300
a year on your phone bill. <
http://clk.atdmt.com/VON/go/yhxxxvon1080000017von/direct/01/>Sign up now.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Users mailing list
>>> Users(a)openser.org
>>> <http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users>
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
>
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>
--
Jiri Kuthan
http://iptel.org/~jiri/
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
--
Jiri Kuthan
http://iptel.org/~jiri/
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
--
Klaus Darilion
nic.at
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers