[Asterisk-Dev] rewriting asterisk as a state machine?

[Michael Giagnocavo]

Does Linux have the concept of fibers as NT does? If so, wouldn't that have
some potential? TLS and locking mechanisms would have to be changed, but
it'd be one way on cutting down on context switches without having to
rewrite *everything*, right? Or am I completely off track here?

-Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: asterisk-dev-bounces at lists.digium.com
[mailto:asterisk-dev-bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Nir Simionovich
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 1:54 PM
To: 'Asterisk Developers Mailing List'
Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Dev] rewriting asterisk as a state machine?

Alex,

  I would have to disagree with you on that one. Although CPU's are getting
cheaper from day to day, that is not the way to go. 

  The approach you are taking is: It's too slow, no problem, lets ramp up
the minimum requirements. 

  That kind of approach brought us products like Windows, where no matter
what kind of power you have, it never works right. Now, lowering the number
of CX's on the core would mean that the software density is improved
dramatically, in addition to improving stability and reliability. Think of
it this way, 3500 CX's means 3500 possible error locations, reduce that to
50 or a 100, you do the math. 

  I must admit that it had been a while since I've written a multi-threaded
code in C/C++ (man I'm rusty), but the advantage is clear as the sun. For
Asterisk to become bigger than life - parts of the switching core should be
either optimized or completely re-written from scratch.

JMHO

Nir S

-----Original Message-----
From: asterisk-dev-bounces at lists.digium.com
[mailto:asterisk-dev-bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of
alex at pilosoft.com
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 9:17 PM
To: Asterisk Developers Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Dev] rewriting asterisk as a state machine?

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:

> in current asterisk gateway setups, a set of 20 active channels
> generates something like 3500 context switches per second, giving a
> 170-200 context switches per channel per second. This is an awful lot...
It is an awful lot. But realistically, it should be at least 50 ctx 
switches per channel per second (reading 20ms samples). 

> Would it be possible to rewrite asterisk so as each channel's data
> read/write would be in common threads with a select() or so? what would
> this take? this really would decrease the overhead on busy systems....
That would be a heavy rewrite, changing blocking code with threads into 
nonblocking code with select() - is untrivial task, and probably 
pointless.

CPU are cheap.

-alex

_______________________________________________
Asterisk-Dev mailing list
Asterisk-Dev at lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev

_______________________________________________
Asterisk-Dev mailing list
Asterisk-Dev at lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev