[Spce-user] Σχετ: Sip Provider CE specs

[Matthew Ogden]

Hi Andreas,

In the defence of virtualisation :)

Virtualized system performance is much the same- always bound by the limits
of hardware in terms of RAM, Disk and CPU performance.

But having said that, we have MS SQL server virtualised on SANs with SSD
drives, and these servers are doing averaging 30'000 peaking at 80'000 iops
no problem. Its really just a function of where the bottlenecks lie  and in
this case, we say none, as the aren't enough requests to our client! :)

If however someone is going for your Sipwise Pro platform, I would infact
suggest they don't virtualise, and rather just use your system to provide
the virtualised IP and database sync. its more cost effective with no
expensive SAN or Virtualisation software

I'm sure buying your Sipwise Pro / carrier, and installing Intel PCI based
enterprise SSD is a much better price point!

But then the alternative often has to happen - virtualisation: in our
country, virtualised hosting is growing and growing, and many Datacenters no
longer allow your own equipment to be in them... they want their own servers
hosting your platforms, or you need to be spending much much more money than
is viable.

Regards

> -----Original Message-----
> From: spce-user-bounces at lists.sipwise.com [mailto:spce-user-
> bounces at lists.sipwise.com] On Behalf Of Andreas Granig
> Sent: 05 April 2013 12:46 PM
> To: spce-user at lists.sipwise.com
> Subject: Re: [Spce-user] Σχετ: Sip Provider CE specs
>
> Hi,
>
> The whole system is really mainly I/O bound. According to our performance
> tests, you should use a battery backed raid controller with 10k rpm disks
> and write cache enabled, or alternatively high-end SSDs (you need those
> with high numbers of write cycles to avoid replacing them every 6 months).
>
> Also, the more RAM, the better. 4GB is rather the lower limit, I'd go with
> 16GB.
>
> These two factors make running the SPCE on virtual environments rather
> unattractive.
>
> Andreas
>
> On 04/05/2013 10:04 AM, Theodoros Kafantaris wrote:
> > Dear All,
> > In order not to be misunderstood I would like to rephrase my question
> "B".
> > We would like you to verify whether *SIP provider CE *with
> > recommended* HW *(Dual-core x86_64 compatible 3GHz, 4GB RAM,
> 128GB
> > HDD) can support the performance below or not:
> > *50.000 Subscriber Lines*
> > *180.000 Busy Hour Call Attempts*
> > *50 Call Attempts per Second*
> > *2.000 Concurrent Calls*
> > *Unlimited number of Class4 Peerings*
> > *Unlimited number of SIP Peerings*
> > Please have in mind that we have installed *SIP provider CE *according
> > to the provided procedure by you .
> > Having this standard architecture implemented, RTP packets from user A
> > to B will be routed to each other, passing via *SIP provider CE.*
> > Could you please verify that the recommended*
> HW/Architecture/Topology
> > *can support the above performance value when media(audio or video)
> > follows that path?
> > If not do you suggest the usage of a STUN server instead (Question A)?
> > Best Regards.
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > *Απο:* Kevin Masse <kmasse at questblue.com>
> > *Προς:* Jeremie Chism <jchism2 at gmail.com>; Theodoros Kafantaris
> > <thkafadaris at yahoo.gr>
> > *Κοιν.:* spce-user at lists.sipwise.com
> > *Στάλθηκε:* 2:31 π.μ. Παρασκευή, 5 Απριλίου 2013
> > *Θέμα:* RE: [Spce-user] Sip Provider CE specs
> >
> > Greetings, I agree with Jeremie on server load.  There really isn't
> > much to a load when everything is working as expected.
> > My only comment is  in question b as listed below.
> > It would greatly help to understand your configuration before a firm
> > answer can be provided with theories on volume.
> > Will you be using Sipwise as a SBC?
> > Kevin
> > *From:*spce-user-bounces at lists.sipwise.com
> > [mailto:spce-user-bounces at lists.sipwise.com] *On Behalf Of *Jeremie
> > Chism
> > *Sent:* Thursday, April 04, 2013 7:23 PM
> > *To:* Theodoros Kafantaris
> > *Cc:* spce-user at lists.sipwise.com
> > *Subject:* Re: [Spce-user] Sip Provider CE specs The load is almost
> > zero with several hundred subscribers. I would expect the recommended
> > hardware and subscribers to be close. I'm sure Kevin could vouch for
> > server load since he has more on a single server.
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Apr 4, 2013, at 4:14 PM, Theodoros Kafantaris <thkafadaris at yahoo.gr
> > <mailto:thkafadaris at yahoo.gr>> wrote:
> >
> >     Dear Sipwise Team,
> >     I have 2 questions:
> >     a)Can I use a Stun server in order to avoid media stream from going
> >     though the Sip Provider CE?
> >     b)What is the load that the SIP Provider CE can handle with
> >     recommended HW ( Dual-core x86_64 compatible 3GHz, 4GB RAM,
> 128GB
> >     HDD) setup taking all the media streams through itself?
> >     Best Regards,
> >     Theo
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     Spce-user mailing list
> >     Spce-user at lists.sipwise.com <mailto:Spce-user at lists.sipwise.com>
> >     http://lists.sipwise.com/listinfo/spce-user
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Spce-user mailing list
> > Spce-user at lists.sipwise.com
> > http://lists.sipwise.com/listinfo/spce-user
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spce-user mailing list
> Spce-user at lists.sipwise.com
> http://lists.sipwise.com/listinfo/spce-user