[Asterisk-Users] Performance: Xeon or Opteron?

[Kristian Kielhofner]

Rich Adamson wrote:
>>> Yep, there is a lot of chatter about how hardware "x" performs with 
>>> Asterisk and while I/O is the primary mover, most designs today will 
>>> handle the modest Asterisk install easily.   I've got a site where 
>>> they use 6 lines and 15 users on a 500Mhz CPU w/512MB RAM and boot 
>>> off a 2GB flash disk.
>>>
>>> VERY modest and absolutely dominates that particular install.
>>>
>>> Only in the larger installs will hardware be an issue, but even then 
>>> it doesn't take much hardware (from a server perspective) to handle a 
>>> LOT of Asterisk traffic.
>>>
>>> RandyW
>>>
>> The worst problem will be older hardware that doesn't play well with 
>> Digium cards. The TDM400 is the one I have some experience with, and 
>> even motherboards that are PCI 2.2 don't always see the TDM400
>> The Sangoma A200 seems more forgiving.
>> I have to wonder if the T1/E1 cards suffer  in a similar manner?
> 
> 
> While talking with one of the sangoma folks very recently, he was rather 
> emphatic the pci bus was designed to "share" interrupts. I was a little 
> concerned as a test server had the wanpipe driver sharing an interrupt 
> with libata and uhc1_hcd. His comment was "that's the way its suppose to 
> work, sharing interrupts as needed". I've not had any recognizable 
> issues with the A200D card at all, and faxing via a A200D fxs port to a 
> A200D fxo (pstn) port functions 100% reliably.
> 
> What that would suggest is the TDM400 pci firmware (whether on card 
> logic or whatever) is the source of at least part of the TDM400 shared 
> interrupt issue. I don't have any digium T1/E1 cards laying around, but 
> if memory serves correctly, the T1/E1 cards do not use the same pci 
> controller chip. That would suggest the T1/E1 cards are less of an issue 
> then with the TDM400 card.
> 

The single port T1/E1 card (te110p) and the TDM400 both use the TigerJet 
320.

--
Kristian Kielhofner