2008/7/6 Grey Man <greymanvoip@???>:
> 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).
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.
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
_______________________________________________
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by
http://www.api-digital.com --
AstriCon 2008 - September 22 - 25 Phoenix, Arizona
Register Now:
http://www.astricon.net
asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
