hi
what is the deference between rtpporxy and mediaproxy
with regards
Vijay Tiwari Network Admin Sachitel Communications Noida(U.P.) M- 09871633711
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
Mediaproxy is more mature but rtpproxy can handle greater load. IMHO both aren't truly fit for the job and consume too much CPU to be useful on large scale.
On 9/10/06, vijay tiwari vijay11tiwari@yahoo.com wrote:
hi
what is the deference between rtpporxy and mediaproxy
with regards
*Vijay Tiwari* *Network Admin* *Sachitel Communications* *Noida(U.P.)* *M- 09871633711*
Do you Yahoo!? Get on board. You're invitedhttp://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=40791/*http:/advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbetato try the new Yahoo! Mail.
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
I don't think that's entirely fair. We've seen deployments of rtpproxy with several thousand streams (compared to a few dozen on mediaproxy). The biggest problem, of course, becomes that then you're into the gigabits of bandwidth realm.... which gets pricey.
The biggest differences between mediaproxy and rtpproxy:
mediaproxy: -written in python -uses DNS srv records to allow you to distribute the load onto multuple servers regionally, geographically, etc. -has a nifty web interface to let you look at statistics of the server (ongoing streams, etc). -can't handle a WHOLE lot of streams per box
rtpproxy: -written in C -doesn't handle distribution of load (for this, you'd need to do some tricks with load balancing on your own -- local, or geographical load balancing. Not easy, but possible). -doesn't have any sort of useful interface to gather information about the server and what it's doing -handles a LOT of streams on a decently-powered box
There are limits to both, of course. You're best off limiting the number of users who require the use of mediaproxy or rtpproxy with some effective coding and standards (in reality, the ONLY people who should be using it are people who are connecting via a symmetric NAT) to avoid bottlenecks.
Like ANY thing else in the massive deployment world, there is always a bottleneck in any SIP scenario, but also like any other massive deployment, you need to analyse your particular environment and decide what works best for you to minimise the bottlenecks using good network design, not just good software.
N.
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 18:26:57 -0400, Script Head wrote
Mediaproxy is more mature but rtpproxy can handle greater load. IMHO both aren't truly fit for the job and consume too much CPU to be useful on large scale.
On 9/10/06, vijay tiwari vijay11tiwari@yahoo.com wrote:
hi what is the deference between rtpporxy and mediaproxy with regards
Vijay Tiwari Network Admin Sachitel Communications Noida(U.P.) M- 09871633711
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!?
Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
FYI: The newest version of rtpproxy can do load balancing... g-)
sip wrote:
I don't think that's entirely fair. We've seen deployments of rtpproxy with several thousand streams (compared to a few dozen on mediaproxy). The biggest problem, of course, becomes that then you're into the gigabits of bandwidth realm.... which gets pricey.
The biggest differences between mediaproxy and rtpproxy:
mediaproxy: -written in python -uses DNS srv records to allow you to distribute the load onto multuple servers regionally, geographically, etc. -has a nifty web interface to let you look at statistics of the server (ongoing streams, etc). -can't handle a WHOLE lot of streams per box
rtpproxy: -written in C -doesn't handle distribution of load (for this, you'd need to do some tricks with load balancing on your own -- local, or geographical load balancing. Not easy, but possible). -doesn't have any sort of useful interface to gather information about the server and what it's doing -handles a LOT of streams on a decently-powered box
There are limits to both, of course. You're best off limiting the number of users who require the use of mediaproxy or rtpproxy with some effective coding and standards (in reality, the ONLY people who should be using it are people who are connecting via a symmetric NAT) to avoid bottlenecks.
Like ANY thing else in the massive deployment world, there is always a bottleneck in any SIP scenario, but also like any other massive deployment, you need to analyse your particular environment and decide what works best for you to minimise the bottlenecks using good network design, not just good software.
N.
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 18:26:57 -0400, Script Head wrote*
Mediaproxy is more mature but rtpproxy can handle greater load. IMHO
both aren't truly fit for the job and consume too much CPU to be useful on large scale.
On 9/10/06, * vijay tiwari* <vijay11tiwari@yahoo.com
mailto:vijay11tiwari@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > hi > > > what is the deference between rtpporxy and mediaproxy > > > with regards > > > > /Vijay Tiwari/ > /Network Admin/ > /Sachitel Communications/ > /Noida(U.P.)/ > /M- 09871633711/ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Do you Yahoo!? > Get on board. You're invited <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=40791/*http:/advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta> to try the new Yahoo! Mail. > > _______________________________________________ > Serusers mailing list > Serusers@lists.iptel.org <mailto:Serusers@lists.iptel.org> > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers > >
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Sweet! Now all it needs is a decent interface of some sort to grab information, and it'd be golden.
N.
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 12:00:01 +0200, Greger V. Teigre wrote
FYI: The newest version of rtpproxy can do load balancing... g-)
sip wrote: I don't think that's entirely fair. We've seendeployments of rtpproxy with several thousand streams (compared to afew dozen on mediaproxy). The biggest problem, of course, becomes thatthen you're into the gigabits of bandwidth realm.... which gets pricey.
The biggest differences between mediaproxy and rtpproxy:
mediaproxy: -written in python -uses DNS srv records to allow you to distribute the load onto multupleservers regionally, geographically, etc. -has a nifty web interface to let you look at statistics of the server(ongoing streams, etc). -can't handle a WHOLE lot of streams per box
rtpproxy: -written in C -doesn't handle distribution of load (for this, you'd need to do sometricks with load balancing on your own -- local, or geographical loadbalancing. Not easy, but possible). -doesn't have any sort of useful interface to gather information aboutthe server and what it's doing -handles a LOT of streams on a decently-powered box
There are limits to both, of course. You're best off limiting thenumber of users who require the use of mediaproxy or rtpproxy with someeffective coding and standards (in reality, the ONLY people who shouldbe using it are people who are connecting via a symmetric NAT) to avoidbottlenecks.
Like ANY thing else in the massive deployment world, there is always abottleneck in any SIP scenario, but also like any other massivedeployment, you need to analyse your particular environment and decidewhat works best for you to minimise the bottlenecks using good networkdesign, not just good software.
N.
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 18:26:57 -0400, Script Head wrote
Mediaproxy is more mature but rtpproxy can handle greater load.IMHO both aren't truly fit for the job and consume too much CPU to beuseful on large scale.
On 9/10/06, vijay tiwari vijay11tiwari@yahoo.comwrote:
hi what is the deference between rtpporxy and mediaproxy with regards
VijayTiwari NetworkAdmin SachitelCommunications Noida(U.P.) M-09871633711
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!?
Get on board. You'reinvited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
----------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________Serusers mailing listSerusers@lists.iptel.orghttp://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
olivier.taylor wrote:
wow greger,
where is the doc about that fonctionality? Wich version are we talking about?
* 2005-02-24 Added support for using more than one rtp proxy, in which * case traffic will be distributed evenly among them. In addition, * each such proxy can be assigned a weight, which will specify * which share of the traffic should be placed to this particular * proxy. * * Introduce failover mechanism, so that if SER detects that one * of many proxies is no longer available it temporarily decreases * its weight to 0, so that no traffic will be assigned to it. * Such "disabled" proxies are periodically checked to see if they * are back to normal in which case respective weight is restored * resulting in traffic being sent to that proxy again. * * Those features can be enabled by specifying more than one "URI" * in the rtpproxy_sock parameter, optionally followed by the weight, * which if absent is assumed to be 1, for example: * * rtpproxy_sock="unix:/foo/bar=4 udp:1.2.3.4:3456=3 udp:5.6.7.8:5432=1"
This has been available for over a year now.
Olivier
Greger V. Teigre a écrit :
FYI: The newest version of rtpproxy can do load balancing... g-)
Yet again, we see the value of having good documentation.
Rtpproxy's is somewhat... lacking. Having a comment in code or in the changelog does not equate to good documentation.
N.
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 13:52:54 -0400, Andres wrote
olivier.taylor wrote:
wow greger,
where is the doc about that fonctionality? Wich version are we talking about?
- 2005-02-24 Added support for using more than one rtp proxy, in which
case traffic will be distributed evenly among them.In addition, * each such proxy can be assigned a weight, which will specify * which share of the traffic should be placed to this particular * proxy. * * Introduce failover mechanism, so that if SER detects that one * of many proxies is no longer available it temporarily decreases
its weight to 0, so that no traffic will be assignedto it. * Such "disabled" proxies are periodically checked to see if they * are back to normal in which case respective weight is restored * resulting in traffic being sent to that proxy again. * * Those features can be enabled by specifying more than one "URI" * in the rtpproxy_sock parameter, optionally followed by the weight, * which if absent is assumed to be 1, for example:
rtpproxy_sock="unix:/foo/bar=4 udp:1.2.3.4:3456=3udp:5.6.7.8:5432=1"
This has been available for over a year now.
Olivier
Greger V. Teigre a écrit :
FYI: The newest version of rtpproxy can do load balancing... g-)
-- Andres Technical Support http://www.telesip.net
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Yes, You're right. And quite soon the docs will be made more available at iptel.org and you (and others) will be allowed to update documentation, as well as comment to give input to future versions ;-) g-)
sip wrote:
Yet again, we see the value of having good documentation.
Rtpproxy's is somewhat... lacking. Having a comment in code or in the changelog does not equate to good documentation.
N.
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 13:52:54 -0400, Andres wrote
olivier.taylor wrote:
wow greger,
where is the doc about that fonctionality? Wich version are we talking about?
- 2005-02-24 Added support for using more than one rtp proxy, in which
case traffic will be distributed evenly among them.In addition, * each such proxy can be assigned a weight, which will specify * which share of the traffic should be placed to this particular * proxy. * * Introduce failover mechanism, so that if SER detects that one * of many proxies is no longer available it temporarily decreases
its weight to 0, so that no traffic will be assignedto it. * Such "disabled" proxies are periodically checked to see if they * are back to normal in which case respective weight is restored * resulting in traffic being sent to that proxy again. * * Those features can be enabled by specifying more than one "URI" * in the rtpproxy_sock parameter, optionally followed by the weight, * which if absent is assumed to be 1, for example:
rtpproxy_sock="unix:/foo/bar=4 udp:1.2.3.4:3456=3udp:5.6.7.8:5432=1"
This has been available for over a year now.
Olivier
Greger V. Teigre a écrit :
FYI: The newest version of rtpproxy can do load balancing... g-)
-- Andres Technical Support http://www.telesip.net
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-
Andres -
Greger V. Teigre -
olivier.taylor -
Script Head -
sip -
vijay tiwari