asterisk users - Mar 2005 - Comprehensive Asterisk Load Testing

Hello,

	I would like to test the capabilities of the various hardware that I 
run AstLinux on:

- Soekris Net4801 (266mhz Geode)
- 1ghz P3
- 1ghz Via C3
- 2.5ghz Celeron
- 3 ghz x 2 Xeon

	
	What I would like to do is use * on the higher end machines to pound as 
many calls as possible (probably 10, 20 at a time) into * on the lesser 
machines.  I will then try to keep track of system resources (CPU usage, 
memory usage, etc) on the "client" machines.  I want to do this with 
various codecs, jitterbuffer yes/no, trunk yes/no, SIP, IAX, across all 
of this hardware to at least get an idea of what I can expect from these 
CPU's (as far as transcoding goes).  "show translations" is just
not
cutting it anymore... :)

	Not to self-promote, but AstLinux looks like a perfect platform to do 
testing like this because of consistency and the fact that it can run 
from flash and RAM, so disk I/O should not ever be a problem...

	I am thinking some combination of app_milliwatt & the outgoing call 
spool or manager interface would be a good way to go about this.  The 
wiki page has no specifics for doing this, so I thought I would ask. 
How is this normally done, or is there a completely different, better 
way to do it?


Thanks in advance!

--
Kristian Kielhofner

Hey,

Most of the time you dont need a big machine to test a small machine.
Just make sure there is no transcoding on the sending end.
I did all the tests you mentioned (Except for the jitter buffer) on a
dual xeon and a via c3.

That took me about 2 months fulltime (its a lot harder than it looks),
you can find some of the results on www.astertest.com (there you will
find also some imature version of a callgenerator for asterisk that
would probably help you to do things faster).
I could also help you off list if you want.

Zoa.



Kristian Kielhofner wrote:
> Hello,
>
>     I would like to test the capabilities of the various hardware that
> I run AstLinux on:
>
> - Soekris Net4801 (266mhz Geode)
> - 1ghz P3
> - 1ghz Via C3
> - 2.5ghz Celeron
> - 3 ghz x 2 Xeon
>
>
>     What I would like to do is use * on the higher end machines to
> pound as many calls as possible (probably 10, 20 at a time) into * on
> the lesser machines.  I will then try to keep track of system
> resources (CPU usage, memory usage, etc) on the "client"
machines.  I
> want to do this with various codecs, jitterbuffer yes/no, trunk
> yes/no, SIP, IAX, across all of this hardware to at least get an idea
> of what I can expect from these CPU's (as far as transcoding goes).
> "show translations" is just not cutting it anymore... :)
>
>     Not to self-promote, but AstLinux looks like a perfect platform to
> do testing like this because of consistency and the fact that it can
> run from flash and RAM, so disk I/O should not ever be a problem...
>
>     I am thinking some combination of app_milliwatt & the outgoing
> call spool or manager interface would be a good way to go about this.
> The wiki page has no specifics for doing this, so I thought I would
> ask. How is this normally done, or is there a completely different,
> better way to do it?
>
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> --
> Kristian Kielhofner
> _______________________________________________
> Asterisk-Users mailing list
> Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 254 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url :
http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20050330/8b6f3e9e/signature.pgp

asterisk-users-bounces@lists.digium.com wrote:
> Hey,
> 
> Most of the time you dont need a big machine to test a small machine.
> Just make sure there is no transcoding on the sending end.
> I did all the tests you mentioned (Except for the jitter buffer) on a
> dual xeon and a via c3.
> 
> That took me about 2 months fulltime (its a lot harder than it looks),
> you can find some of the results on www.astertest.com (there you will
> find also some imature version of a callgenerator for asterisk that
> would probably help you to do things faster).
> I could also help you off list if you want.
> 
Zoa..

Have you done the test using call generator on test or production boxes?

Ta
Senad

Its a very very bad idea to do this on production boxes. Especially if
you are trying to see how far you can go, and then you cross that tiny
border :)

Your production calls will not like an idle cpu% of 0% and a load of 500.

zoa,


Bicom Systems wrote:
>asterisk-users-bounces@lists.digium.com wrote:
>
>
>>Hey,
>>
>>Most of the time you dont need a big machine to test a small machine.
>>Just make sure there is no transcoding on the sending end.
>>I did all the tests you mentioned (Except for the jitter buffer) on a
>>dual xeon and a via c3.
>>
>>That took me about 2 months fulltime (its a lot harder than it looks),
>>you can find some of the results on www.astertest.com (there you will
>>find also some imature version of a callgenerator for asterisk that
>>would probably help you to do things faster).
>>I could also help you off list if you want.
>>
>>
>>
>Zoa..
>
>Have you done the test using call generator on test or production boxes?
>
>Ta
>Senad
>_______________________________________________
>Asterisk-Users mailing list
>Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 254 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url :
http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20050330/45c68be2/signature.pgp

asterisk-users-bounces@lists.digium.com wrote:
> Its a very very bad idea to do this on production boxes. Especially if
> you are trying to see how far you can go, and then you cross that tiny
> border :)
> 
> Your production calls will not like an idle cpu% of 0% and a load of
> 500. 
I could not agree more with you hence my question :)

However, the tests results produced on test boxes:
How realistic it is? 
Does it really presents "real life"
scenarios and results?
Does it take in consideration different
type of services (calls, IVR, queues) ?

I am not trying to put down anyone or anything here, I  am just
curious.

Ta
Senad

Bicom Systems wrote:
> asterisk-users-bounces@lists.digium.com wrote:
> 
>>Its a very very bad idea to do this on production boxes. Especially if
>>you are trying to see how far you can go, and then you cross that tiny
>>border :)
>>
>>Your production calls will not like an idle cpu% of 0% and a load of
>>500. 
> 
> 
> I could not agree more with you hence my question :)
> 
> However, the tests results produced on test boxes:
> How realistic it is? 
> Does it really presents "real life"
> scenarios and results?
> Does it take in consideration different
> type of services (calls, IVR, queues) ?
> 
> I am not trying to put down anyone or anything here, I  am just
> curious.
> 
> Ta
> Senad
Senad,

	I have yet to take a real hard look or contact Zoa, but if all you are 
doing is calling an extension (very rapidly and many, many times) it 
really would not be very hard to test queues, music on hold, meetme, 
etc.  I am downloading the callgenerator from astertest.com right now...

	The most realistic test is to (obviously) register as many phones as 
possible and hire hundreds of people to talk on them... :)

--
Kristian Kielhofner