search for: 160ms

...eived on SIP/test6-00000714, duration 100 ms [Jan 5 17:14:44] DTMF[29384] channel.c: DTMF end passthrough '2' on SIP/test6-00000714*** Here I explicitly chose option "2" by pressing on button "2". What is going on with the Snom ? There is a difference in duration (160ms vs 100ms). Is that the problem ?? Kind regards, Jonas. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20110105/979f9705/attachment.htm>

On 04/10/2016 10:27 AM, Adrian Minta wrote: > It will be nice if the "SELECT MyMailbox" command will be "SELECT > mymailbox LIMIT 100" or something, to get the first files since only the > last messages are shown to the user. SELECTing a mailbox has nothing to do with FETCHing messages, so above does not make much sense. I don't know dovecot's code, but I

...er signal that's given to speex_echo_cancellation() is 100ms older than what's currently playing). The frame length is set to 20ms. And to switch between rc1 and beta3, I simply replace mdf.c from the corresponding tarball. Nothing else is changed. The actual tail length I think is around 160ms, so I'm not sure if default testecho can cope with it. In case it matters, the original input files are the 16khz ones, the 8khz is the resampled version of it (I don't think it matters in this case though since the resample is quite good). And one more thing, my mic is not synched to the...

...e"."first", "people"."last", "people"."entity_id", "people"."user_id" FROM "people" WHERE ("people".user_id = 1061) LIMIT 1 Rendered users/show.html.haml within layouts/application (31.8ms) Completed in 160ms Started GET "/account" for 127.0.0.1 at 2010-11-30 22:34:18 +0200 Processing by UsersController#show as HTML User Load (2.1ms) SELECT "users".* FROM "users" WHERE ("users"."id" = 1061) LIMIT 1 CACHE (1.0ms) SELECT "users".* FROM...

...speex_echo_cancellation() is > 100ms older than what's currently playing). The frame length is set to 20ms. > > And to switch between rc1 and beta3, I simply replace mdf.c from the > corresponding tarball. Nothing else is changed. > > The actual tail length I think is around 160ms, so I'm not sure if > default testecho can cope with it. > > In case it matters, the original input files are the 16khz ones, the > 8khz is the resampled version of it (I don't think it matters in this > case though since the resample is quite good). > > And one more...

...etwork A and network B TCP traffic is coming in at a rate faster than 100 Mbit. As a result the delay is 30ms for both setups (using htb and PRIO) There is 0% loss of EF traffic. When i used a plain first in first out queue and saturated the link with tcp traffic the delay of the voice traffic was 160ms with 5% loss of voip traffic. Why is this delay so high when the link is saturated and Im using either PRIO or HTB to apply the EF PHB to VoIP traffic ???? Is it operating system ? Has anyone else had similar experiences ? Jonathan ----------------------------------------------------------...

Hi Jean-Marc, I tried with both testecho and my test program, and for some reason it just doesn't cancel any echoes with the 1.2-rc1. The testecho from beta3 binaries works fine, and also if I replaced mdf.c in 1.2-rc1 with mdf.c from beta3 and use my test program, it will work again. This happens for both 8KHz and 16KHz. Any ideas? I could upload the test samples and results if needed.

...uential Input- --Random- Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP glapi 8G 359100 59 185289 24 489575 31 2079 67 Latency 160ms 355ms 36041us 185ms Version 1.97 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- Concurrency 1 -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP glapi 8...

Hi there, (context: I was optimizing Roundcube mailbox list server response, and in that 300-400ms response time, around 170ms is spent on single fgets() call which is waiting IMAP repsonse to "SELECT MyMailbox" command) I straced dovecot and of the whole request/response process, around 30ms is spent for everything else, and overwhelming majority of time (150-170ms) is spent for

It worries me how many threads talk about low performance. I'm about to build out a replica 3 setup and run Ovirt with a bunch of Windows VMs. Are the issues Tony is experiencing "normal" for Gluster? Does anyone here have a system with windows VMs and have good performance? *Vincent Royer* *778-825-1057* <http://www.epicenergy.ca/> *SUSTAINABLE MOBILE ENERGY SOLUTIONS*

Maybe a little off-topic - but I hope not too much. Looking for some insight on setting up Dovecot under a virtual server. In particular, I use VirtualBox - and at the moment, Ubuntu Linux. Initial questions on configuration: Caching. It seems to me - and I'm probably wrong - that running a Linux in a VM on a Linux host, there would be a duplication of caching. That is, the host

On 01/05/2018 02:27, Thing wrote: > Hi, > > So is the KVM or Vmware as the host(s)?? I basically have the same setup > ie 3 x 1TB "raid1" nodes and VMs, but 1gb networking.? I do notice with > vmware using NFS disk was pretty slow (40% of a single disk) but this > was over 1gb networking which was clearly saturating.? Hence I am moving > to KVM to use glusterfs

I had originally mentioned this only to 2 people, which was Jordan K. Hubbard and Paul Henning-Kemp, but since I have received a lot of queries on this, I thought I might as well post it on the FreeBSD announce groups. Included below is a posting done on the Linux-atm mailing group, by Pragnesh Sampat. I have just adapted for FreeBSD. RV -------------------------- Announcement

...) > > Can someone (who is more intimate with Dovecot's internals) comment on what > dovecot is actually doing, where this time is being spent? That would be > awesome:) > > My uidfile is 4MB "large" and reading it takes about 3ms on my system, so > there is still ~160ms (98%) of dovecot's delay that is unaccounted for. You could try to trace Dovecot and see if there are a lot of syscalls when a new connection starts up, e.g. with strace or dtruss. > BTW: I would have thought that the whole process goes like this: > - user logs in, dovecot imap process...

Interesting. Might be worth giving a try again to the idea of creating the file in anonymous memory and using a write to output it. Cheers, Rafael On 23 November 2016 at 02:41, Sean Silva via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> LLD supports