[Serusers] Re: Fw: [Users] TM : retransmission timers
Jiri Kuthan
jiri at iptel.org
Mon Nov 27 16:42:49 CET 2006
I think it can be quite many SER improvements actually. Timers, tm, some core
changes too may collectively affect the performance. -jiri
At 14:34 27/11/2006, Vaclav Kubart wrote:
>I guess that it is an old improvement in ser, but running this test
>against older ser versions could show which version was it...
>
> Vaclav
>
>On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 01:25:06PM +0100, Klaus Darilion wrote:
>> This leads to one question:
>>
>> Are there improvements to ser's stable branch since the fork, or is it
>> degradation in openser?
>>
>> regards
>> klaus
>>
>> Vaclav Kubart wrote:
>> >I'm sorry to nip in, but I tried to rerun the tests again and add more
>> >info into output as requested and add stable ser and CVS openser.
>> >
>> >I know that this test doesn't conform much to real life (for example
>> >generated callid/branch/tags differs only in a number, etc) but it can
>> >give at least an image about simple stateful forward.
>> >
>> >So, if anybody is interested:
>> >
>> >http://www.iptel.org/~vku/performance/tm.serXopenser.correct/
>> >
>> >I tried the same once more with less iterations because there were some
>> >errors in log from openser speaking about low memory (I used -m to
>> >specify shared mem size but with 768M it still said errors, might be a
>> >memleak or did I anything wrong?). With 1M iterations it was without
>> >errors:
>> >
>> >http://www.iptel.org/~vku/performance/tm.serXopenser.1M/
>> >
>> > Vaclav
>> >
>> >P.S. I have forgotten - SIPP was "Sipp v1.1, version 20060829, built Sep
>> >5 2006, 15:07:25", I'm attaching simple patch which I have used.
>> >
>> >On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 12:48:12AM +0200, 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.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>http://www.iptel.org/~vku/performance/tm.serXopenser.pulpuk/
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>-jiri
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>At 21:16 09/11/2006, Rao Ramaratnamma wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>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 at googlemail.com>
>> >>>>To: Kim Il <kim_il_s at yahoo.com>
>> >>>>Cc: users at 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 at yahoo.com>kim_il_s at 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 at googlemail.com>bp4mls at 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 at yahoo.com> kim_il_s at 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 at openser.org
>> >>>><http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users>http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>_______________________________________________
>> >>>>Serusers mailing list
>> >>>>Serusers at lists.iptel.org
>> >>>>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>> >>>>
>> >>>--
>> >>>Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
>> >>>
>> >>>_______________________________________________
>> >>>Serusers mailing list
>> >>>Serusers at lists.iptel.org
>> >>>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>_______________________________________________
>> >>Serusers mailing list
>> >>Serusers at lists.iptel.org
>> >>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>> >>
>> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >>_______________________________________________
>> >>Serusers mailing list
>> >>Serusers at lists.iptel.org
>> >>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>>
>>
>> --
>> Klaus Darilion
>> nic.at
>_______________________________________________
>Serusers mailing list
>Serusers at lists.iptel.org
>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
More information about the sr-users
mailing list