[asterisk-users] [asterisk-dev] Locking, coding guidelines addition

[Steve Totaro]

On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 9:08 AM, Stephen Davies
<stephen.l.davies at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 2008/7/6 Grey Man <greymanvoip at gmail.com>:
>>
>> From what I can gather the suggestion from the FS approach is that
>> each Asterisk channel should be handled after by it's own unique
>> thread and save the need for any locking on the channel data
>> structures in the first place.
>
>
> After a quick grep, there are lots of mutex locks and unlocks in the FS
> code.  As you would expect.
> I guess Steve Totaro's "grunt techs" know that, whilst Steve has drunk the
> koolaid (and is trolling, anyway).

Wrong again.

>
> Nevertheless - the suggestion as I understand it is that there is less
> contention for locks in FS due to the design choice that one thread is
> created that handles one active channel.  I guess the theory is that
> _everything_ done on that channel is done in that thread.  By contrast, we
> have a mix of design styles like the worker threads, network threads etc.
>
> But we don't have evidence that contention for mutexes (aka locks) is
> slowing Asterisk down.  So it there is a big performance different it will
> probably be elsewhere - like the linked lists that are already getting
> attention.

Lack of evidence means absolutely nothing, besides you are clueless.

>
> My curiosity is piqued to do a proper comparison of Asterisk and Freeswitch
> with a realistic workload and compare results (and profile Asterisk if there
> is a big difference.
>
> Steve

So again, I pose the question, why a 10X improvement?

I will compare the two on the same hardware, but for what its worth,
(the name that cannot spoke) shows how much slower Asterisk is.

Thanks,
Steve Totarao