Weiter Leiter wrote:
While trying to remain equidistant:
On 11/22/06, Klaus Darilion klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at wrote:
Jiri Kuthan wrote:
Hi Daniel,
thank you for your speech. I do not wish to discourage you in your
enthusiasm,
but at the same moment I prefer to rely on accurate measurements and
not to
spend time on undermining their results or relevance in a derogative
way. The data
shows quite clearly the performance of the underlying "engine", the
stack,
which is part of every server's doing and has *inherent* impact on the
overall
performance and consequently scalability in whatever setup you have
(unless the
setup relies on some underperforming techniques). That's what it is.
Yes - tm performance is fine, but from my practical experience external applications (database lookups, DNS lookups ...) are the real limitations. Maybe DNS lookups are not a bottleneck anymore in ser (due to caching), but this also only works for already cached results.
You are right, but these bottle necks affect both projects. I wouldn't count it as a discriminator. Or do you see improvements in either project in the way they access the DB at runtime? I know that OpenSER loads (only?) faster.
Nothing that I am aware. But using openser instead of ser (0.9) I could get rid of some external scipts and overall performance was better - but as I said this was with old ser - Ottendorf probably also allows better more flexible routing.
Maybe Ottendorf is better (faster, more flexible) than current openser - but some months ago IMO openser was the only reasonable choice. But I think Ottendorf wont be that fast/flexible when it is about adding new features (applying patches ...)
Thus, when choosing a SIP proxy, there are more attributes which have to be considered except performance.
regards Klaus