<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Benny Amorsen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:benny%2Busenet@amorsen.dk">benny+usenet@amorsen.dk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">"Olle E. Johansson" <<a href="mailto:oej@edvina.net">oej@edvina.net</a>> writes:<br>
<br>
> Imaging my surprise this Monday when I installed a plain old Asterisk<br>
> 1.4 on a new HP server, a DL380 G6, and could run in circles around<br>
> the old IBM servers.<br>
<br>
</div>The G6 series is pure magic for everything I've let it touch<br>
network-wise.<br>
<br>
I have three guesses as to why:<br>
<br>
1) Lots and lots of bandwidth between CPU and I/O, plus built-in memory<br>
controller so any packet copying runs wicked fast.<br>
<br>
2) MSI-X seems to really help, at least when combined with modern<br>
ethernet chipsets (the original PRO/1000 is looking a bit dated now, but<br>
more modern PRO/1000 should still be a good choice).<br>
<br>
3) Multi-queue NIC. This should REALLY help when you have lots of cores<br>
and CPU threads. Depends on fairly new kernels.<br>
<br>
I'm not sure which is the answer though.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
/Benny<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br>Packets per second is going to be the eventual bottleneck no matter if it is Asterisk, FreeSwitch, or whatever. Using multiple switches will help but a backplane or interface. can only take so many PPS.<br>
<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throughput">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throughput</a><br></div></div>