<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt"><span style="font-family: tahoma,arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><hr width="100%" size="2" align="center" />
<b>From</b>: "Jeff Brower" <jbrower@signalogic.com><br />
<b>Sent</b>: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 8:49 AM<br />
<b>To</b>: "Brynjolfur Thorvardsson" <binni@itanet.nu><br />
<b>Subject</b>: Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk V/s FreeSwitch</span><br />
<br />
Brynjolfur-<br />
<br />
> According to this article here:<br />
><br />
> http://anders.com/cms/266<br />
><br />
> the difference mainly lies in how FreeSwitchs handles open<br />
> channels in comparison with Asterisk. FS uses one thread<br />
> per channel while * keeps jumping between threads. At least<br />
> that's how I understand it.<br />
<br />
If the difference really is 10:1, then I doubt that threads vs. linked lists completely explains it.<br />
<br />
But the difference may not be that much, as some other posts indicate. I would suggest to Virendra to make sure he's<br />
comparing identical configurations: machine type/speed/mem, same type of calls, same amount of call RTP handling<br />
(G711, no echo can, no recording, no DTMF, etc), latest versions of both softwares, and so on. That would be a good<br />
test.<br />
<br />
Since the metric in this case is concurrent calls, not CPS, it could be that for some reason, Asterisk's RTP coding<br />
isn't as efficient.<br />
<br />
-Jeff<br />
<br />
> Fra: asterisk-users-bounces@lists.digium.com [mailto:asterisk-users-bounces@lists.digium.com] På vegne af virendra<br />
> bhati<br />
> Sendt: 8. februar 2012 06:34<br />
> Til: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion<br />
> Emne: Re: [asterisk-users] Asterisk V/s FreeSwitch<br />
><br />
> thanks Gilles,<br />
><br />
> After reading these web links. it's pretty clear that FreeSwitch is batter then Asterisk feature, quality wise. But<br />
> asterisk is easy to used.<br />
><br />
> But the question is still open from my end.<br />
><br />
> How FreeSwitch can support 1000CC but asterisk not ?<br />
><br />
> Because FreeSwitch used XML as configuration and asterisk plan text file ?<br />
> FreeSwitch used sofia_sip and asterisk used sip ?<br />
> Asterisk is PBX and FreeSwitch is SoftSwitch ?<br />
><br />
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Gilles <codecomplete@free.fr<mailto:codecomplete@free.fr>> wrote:<br />
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 17:08:18 +0530, virendra bhati <virbhati@gmail.com<mailto:virbhati@gmail.com>><br />
> wrote:<br />
>>Why FreeSwitch can handle more then 1,000CC and asterisk only 25CC ? What<br />
>>technology FreeSwitch is used and asterisk don't. I don't know it's the<br />
>>right or wrong but this question come to my mind...<br />
> Provided Asterisk, even in release 1.8 or 10, does handle much fewer<br />
> concurrent calls than Freeswitch, you might find the answer in those<br />
> articles:<br />
><br />
> "How does FreeSWITCH compare to Asterisk?"<br />
> www.freeswitch.org/node/117<http://www.freeswitch.org/node/117><br />
><br />
> "Asterisk vs FreeSWITCH"<br />
> www.richappsconsulting.com/blog/blog-detail/asterisk-vs-freeswitch/<http://www.richappsconsulting.com/blog/blog-detail/asterisk-vs-freeswitch/><br />
><br />
> "Asterisk vs. FreeSWITCH"<br />
> www.anders.com/cms/266<http://www.anders.com/cms/266><br />
><br />
> "Open Source VoIP: Asterisk or FreeSwitch?"<br />
> www.zdnet.com/blog/greenfield/open-source-voip-asterisk-or-freeswitch/233<http://www.zdnet.com/blog/greenfield/open-source-voip-asterisk-or-freeswitch/233><br />
><br />
> "FreeSwitch vs Asterisk"<br />
> www.dslreports.com/forum/r23246683-FreeSwitch-vs-Asterisk<http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r23246683-FreeSwitch-vs-Asterisk><br />
><br />
><br />
><br />
> Thanks and regards<br />
><br />
> Virendra Bhati<br />
> +91-8885268942<br />
> Software Engineer<br />
> E-mail-: virbhati@gmail.com<mailto:virbhati@gmail.com><br />
> Skype id:- virbhati2<br />
<br />
<br />
I too am asking which is a better long term bet as my core Asterisk or Freeswitch.. Most of the info offered is from 2008.. The question I am asking is which is better today. In 2008 I was using 1.4 and it was bleeding edge. 1.8 and 10 have gotten a lot more efficent and. i've found I can speed up asterisk if I reduce my call code complexity, If I don't handle media. So my realy question is apples to apples how do the two compair Today? What features do I have to give up with free switch if I want 300 calls per second and 3000 concurrent calls? Then If I strip back asterisk to that feature set how would it stack up?<br />
<br />
Bryant</span>