21 Nov
2006
21 Nov
'06
7:20 p.m.
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.
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.
-jiri
At 21:16 09/11/2006, Rao Ramaratnamma wrote:
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/ 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 more
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