22 Nov
2006
22 Nov
'06
4:45 p.m.
Weiter Leiter wrote:
While trying to remain equidistant:
On 11/22/06, Klaus Darilion <klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at> wrote:
Nothing that I am aware. But using openser instead of ser (0.9) I could
get rid of some external scipts and overall performance was better - but
as I said this was with old ser - Ottendorf probably also allows better
more flexible routing.
Maybe Ottendorf is better (faster, more flexible) than current openser -
but some months ago IMO openser was the only reasonable choice. But I
think Ottendorf wont be that fast/flexible when it is about adding new
features (applying patches ...)
Thus, when choosing a SIP proxy, there are more attributes which have to
be considered except performance.
regards
Klaus
Jiri Kuthan wrote:
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. 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.