5 Mar
2008
5 Mar
'08
11:13 a.m.
Stefan,
That's great. I should say the numbers are very impressive. Good work.
Certainly we will try to test our application with them and post the results.
Thanks
--Srinivas
-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Sayer [mailto:stefan.sayer@iptego.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:52 AM
To: Raphael Coeffic
Cc: Srinivas Kotamarti; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org; sems(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Sems] Poll on dropping unix socket interface ("unixsockctrl")
Hello,
Raphael Coeffic wrote:
Hi Srinivas,
this is a very good question you are bringing! I forgot to describe these
aspects. So i will try to describe the experience we gathered in the last
weeks.
binrpcctrl:
- increases signaling performance (100% according to Stefan's measurements)
this is not correct, its much more:
http://lists.iptel.org/pipermail/semsdev/2008-January/002015.html
The relation is about 750 cps vs 80 cps, which is ~ 9 times performance
increase.
- increases flexibility (all the informations passed
between SER and SEMS are
configurable).
sipctrl:
- increases signaling performance (80% against binrpcctrl according to
Stefan's measurements)
I don't know where this figure comes from, it is as
well much more (I
said this:
http://lists.iptel.org/pipermail/semsdev/2008-February/002221.html ,
1000 cps on lo on a laptop, versus a quad xeon over lan).
- reduces configuration and run-time complexity
Concerning the stability, it is clear that the next weeks as well as the
community will show us what those new control plug-in are worth. From my
knowledge i would say that we are close to completion for both new plug-ins.
you
can help by trying out your application with the new plugins and
report any possible issues.
Dropping the support does not mean that we will remove it from SVN, that just
means that future version should not use it. Existing installations are not
concerned by those measures.
i.e. i would say it should be part of 1.0 release, but
marked as
deprecated. After that release I would move for removing it, in favor of
more flexibility that new control plugins provide.
Stefan
Cheers
Raphael.
On Wednesday 05 March 2008 15:08, Srinivas Kotamarti wrote:
--
Stefan Sayer
VoIP Services
stefan.sayer(a)iptego.com
www.iptego.com
iptego GmbH
Am Borsigturm 40
13507 Berlin
Germany
Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 101010
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Alexander Hoffmann
Hi Raphael,
What are the advantages of binrpcctrl and sipctrl over the unixsockctrl?
Has enough testing done on them? We are currently using SEMS with SER0.9.6
(with unixsockctrl) and it is working OK for us. IF we move to the
binrpcctrl or sipctrl would we get a better performance?
Thanks
--Srinivas
-----Original Message-----
From: sems-bounces(a)lists.iptel.org [mailto:sems-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On
Behalf Of Raphael Coeffic Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 7:00 AM
To: sems(a)lists.iptel.org
Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: [Sems] Poll on dropping unix socket interface ("unixsockctrl")
Hi *!
with the emergence of the binary RPC interface for SER2 ("binrcpctrl"
plug-in), and SEMS' own sip stack ("sipctrl" plug-in), Stefan and I
believe
that the unix socket control interface is defeated.
That's why we would like to know who is in favor of dropping support for
the unix socket interface.
Cheers and happy polling!
Stefan & Raphael.
_______________________________________________
Sems mailing list
Sems(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/sems