> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: openh323gk-users-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:openh323gk-users-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im > Auftrag von Nyamul Hassaan > Gesendet: Montag, 10. Oktober 2005 18:27 > An: openh323gk-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Betreff: Re: Putting Load on GnuGK Full Proxy > > I am currently using FileAcct on my GnuGK. > Want to use SQL accounting. What is recommended? MySQL or PostgreSQL? I'm using MySQL and it's working fine so far. > I'm familiar with both, but would like your ideas / tips / insights. > Is it ok to use the DB Server on the same machine as the GnuGK? Yes, i even would recommend it strongly, because it's going to be more reliable and more perforant that using a db on a different server. To keep performance high don't forget to set the right indizes and "clean" the db from time to time. > Regards > HASSAAN > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nyamul Hassaan" <mnhassan@xxxxxxx> > To: <openh323gk-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 22:24 > Subject: Re: Putting Load on GnuGK Full Proxy > > > > Thx Frank for sharing your experience. > > And, thx Michal for giving us insights from the developers. > > > > However, I still am confused with the RAM issue. > > Even under 40-50 calls load, my GnuGK shows only 170MB loaded. > > Is this normal? > > > > I'm monitoring the system, and have found the processor is > 35-40% utilized > > on a single PIV 2.4GHz. > > I'm moving to a Dual Xeon over the weekend. Will let you > know how that > > goes. > > > > Regards > > HASSAAN > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Zygmuntowicz Michal" <m.zygmuntowicz@xxxxxxx> > > To: <openh323gk-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 15:13 > > Subject: Re: Putting Load on GnuGK Full Proxy > > > > > > > One side note about H.245 tunneling. I'd recommend > > > either to have all traffic with H.245 tunneling enabled > > > or disable H245Routed flag, as the gatekeeper does not > > > handle well all cases when a separate H.245 TCP channel > > > is being used. > > > > > > I think performance is comparable for small call volumes > > > (let's say 100-200) on both Windows and Unixes. For large > > > call volumes, Unixes have their advantages. Of course, these are > > > not limits of Windows OS itself, rather than socket > handling techniques > > > implemented in the gatekeeper. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Frank Fischer" <frank.fischer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:06 AM > > > > > > > > > > [<nh>] I am trying to put some load on GnuGK and see > how it performs. > > It is > > > > a totally amazing experience. Watching the status > window seems a lot > > > > similar to the numbers dropping in the movie Matrix. > > > > > > > > [<fi> ] Just for my information: What callgeni are you > using? Dou you > > only > > > > test call signaling capacity or also voice quality? I'm very > interested > > to > > > > learn more about you test setup. > > > > > > > > [<nh>] CallGenI? Do you mean CallGenerator? No, I'm > not using any > call > > > > generator. I'm using this box LIVE in route, as a simple SS > > (FileIPAuth, no > > > > other Authentication) between my buyers and my > terminators. That is > why > > I > > > > faced the nightmare today, when I added some capacity in the > termination > > > > side, but increased the wrong IP's entry in the INI > file (the wrong > one > > was > > > > just 1 digit off). :)) Took me around 3-4 minutes to > figure out, but > > in > > > > those 3-4 minutes it felt as if my existence was at stake!!! > > > > [<fi> ] Ah, i see. Nothing better than letting your > customers test > your > > > > softswitch :-) > > > > > > > > [<nh>] I'm running GnuGK Full Proxy & FileIPAuth on > Win2003 with a PIV > > > > 2.4GHz 1024MB RAM system. I've had no problems running 30-32 > > simultaneous > > > > calls. I'm now testing with 40-50 calls, and faced the > "Too Many > Ports" > > > > error, which was corrected by increasing the > CallSignalHandler and > > > > RtpHandler to 3 each. Having a problem like this on a > live system is > > just > > > > like your worst nightmare. > > > > [<fi> ] If you run into port limitations, you may also use h.245 > > tunneling > > > > to "save" some ports per call. > > > > [<nh>] Thanks for the tip. Does that increase overhead? > > > > [<fi> ] I don't think so. But Jan or Michal sure no better. > > > > Any performance bumps? > > > > [<fi> ] Same > > > > Any ideas on what impact CallSignalHandler and RtpHandler has on > > processor / > > > > memory usage? > > > > [<fi> ] As far as we tested, none in special. Of course > usage will > grow > > > > because of increasing traffic (but that's why you are > raising the > > handlers). > > > > There is a presentation of the open telephony summit on > the gnugk > > website > > > > where Jan put it a rule of thumb to calculate how many > handlers one > > should > > > > use depending on the traffic expected. > > > > > > > > [<nh>] Currently, my CPU is showing a 40-45% load. And, > my memory > > > > utilization is at 150MB. My Bandwidth Utilization is > around 1.2-1.4 > > Mbps > > > > (G.723r63 codec only), as shown by DUMeter. > > > > > > > > [<nh>] I have learned a few things during all this: > > > > > > > > [<nh>] 1. It's best to turn debugging off, when no > debugging info is > > > > needed. That makes the CPU load lower, and GnuGK more > responsive. > > > > > > > > [<fi> ] Yes, that's my experience too. It doesn't take > much on debug > trc > > 5 > > > > to generate lag on the call signaling. > > > > > > > > [<nh>] 2. When doing changes to the INI File, (Re)^n check your > config > > > > file, for even the smallest of changes. A small > mistake can be fatal. > > > > > > > > [<nh>] Now, here are my questions: > > > > > > > > [<nh>] 1. Is 40-45% load alright for my GnuGK to > perform smoothly? > > What > > > > should be the ideal range? > > > > [<nh>] 2. Will GnuGK be able to handle more / less calls if => > > > > [<nh>] 2 a. Proxy is set to 0? > > > > > > > > [<fi> ] Yes. Diff: Factors. > > > > [<nh>] Could you mention the factors? > > > > [<fi> ] Hard to say. But sure at least three or four > times more, i > would > > > > expect even more. > > > > I have ample BW (3Mbps), so BW is not an issue. Would > port count be > > > > reduced of Proxy is set to 0 (probably RTP ports wont > be needed?)? > > > > [<fi> ] Sure. I would only use proxy if you really need it. > > > > What other factors? > > > > > > > > [<nh>] 2 b. OS is changed to Linux or FreeBSD or anything else? > > > > [<fi> ] Linux yes (others i don't know). Diff: Some 10 > percents more > in > > best > > > > case. > > > > > > > > [<nh>] Did you actually test on different OSes? I > remember someone > > > > (probably Michal) mentioning that Linux uses ports more > efficiently. > > > > [<fi> ] We tested on Linux (fc3) and W2k03 SRV. Regarding ports > handling > > > > there are "strange" issues on both OSes. > > > > > > > > > > > > [<nh>] 2 c. I reduce RAM to 512 MB or even 256MB, > since only 150 out > of > > > > 1024 MB is shown by Windows as used? > > > > [<fi> ] On Windows, do not remove RAM, better think of > adding add. > RAM > > and > > > > disably swap file. Also, a fast mainbord and RAM can increase > > performance by > > > > some 10 percent easily. > > > > [<nh>] Disable swap file? What will that do? > > > > [<fi> ] Prevent windows from permanently swapping ram > to harddisk and > > vice > > > > versa. The swapping process slows almost everything down. > > > > As I said, my Mem Utilization is at only 15% max. > Would you still > > suggest > > > > adding more RAM? > > > > [<fi> ] Yes (of course always depending on how much > traffic you will > > have on > > > > your system). But: best thing to do is to monitor your > system and when > > you > > > > find out that ressources are getting low or you realize service > quality > > > > problems, you still have time to react. > > > > > > > > > > > > [<nh>] => In all these 3 cases, how much difference in > performance can > I > > > > expect? > > > > > > > > [<fi> ] Please understand that i can only make an > estimation based on > > my > > > > testing experience. > > > > [<nh>] Yes, I was looking for sharing my experiences > among GnuGKusers. > > > > > > > > [<fi> ] One more point about testing: if you reach > limits, carefully > > check > > > > if it are gatekeeper limits or callgeni limits! > > > > [<nh>] As I said, I was checking with live Traffic, > and the GnuGK was > > > > accepting calls from 2 different IPs (via FileIPAuth), > each of which > > were > > > > Cisco5350. And, they hit calls really fast, e.g., > during those 3-4 > > minutes, > > > > when I had the wrong entry, I had around 10-15 call > requests hitting > > every > > > > sec for a mere 5 ch increase in capacity. > > > > > > > > [<nh>] One other question, if I run multiple instances > of GnuGK bound > > to > > > > different IPs on the same machine, will it be reducing > the total Max > > Call > > > > Handling Capability count? Say on the same Machine, I have the > > following > > > > setup: > > > > 1. GnuGKX handling only Call Signalling (with > FileIPAuth only), with > > Proxy > > > > set to 0. This only routes the calls to other GnuGKs > on the same > > machine. > > > > 2. GnuGK1...n (1<n<10), all running on Proxy=1, and > having FileIPAuth > > on > > > > each to accept from only GnuGKX. > > > > Will this scenario reduce the total Max Call Capability > of the whole > > BOX? > > > > [<fi> ] No idea. I have never done this and to be > honest, i don't > think > > that > > > > i will ever try this since i don't think it's a good > idea to have > > multiple > > > > instances of a gatekeeper on one machine (as with many > other services > > too). > > > > If you can do it with one gatekeeper instance, i would > do it with one. > > > > Generally multiple instances of any service produce overhead and > > ressource > > > > conflicts (espacially if they were not implemented with multiple > > instances > > > > in mind). > > > > But maybe some on the list has done this before? > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > Frank > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by: > > > Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, > discussions, > > > and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl > > > _______________________________________________________ > > > > > > Posting: mailto:Openh323gk-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Archive: > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=8549 > > > Unsubscribe: > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openh323gk-users > > > Homepage: http://www.gnugk.org/ > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by: > Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, > discussions, > and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl > _______________________________________________________ > > Posting: mailto:Openh323gk-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Archive: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=8549 > Unsubscribe: > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openh323gk-users > Homepage: http://www.gnugk.org/ > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions, and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl _______________________________________________________ Posting: mailto:Openh323gk-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Archive: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id?49 Unsubscribe: http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openh323gk-users Homepage: http://www.gnugk.org/
