New subject: [Serusers] [Sems] Poll on dropping unix socket interface ("unixsockctrl")

5 Mar 2008

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:
  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 

-- 
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

Re: [Serusers] [Sems] Poll on dropping unix socket interface ("unixsockctrl")