[Serusers] Re: Fw: [Users] TM : retransmission timers

[Klaus Darilion]

Weiter Leiter wrote:
> While trying to remain equidistant:
> 
> On 11/22/06, Klaus Darilion <klaus.mailinglists at 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.

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