<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body><div>I'd be curious to know if your performance might actually be higher, owing to improved CPUs since the study was done, hyperthreading, more frames per NIC interrupt, etc. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div style="font-size:75%;color:#575757">-- Alex<br><br>--<br>Sent from my Samsung mobile, and thus lacking in the refinement one might expect from a proper keyboard. <br><br>Alex Balashov - Principal<br>Evariste Systems LLC<br>235 E Ponce de Leon Ave<br>Suite 106<br>Decatur, GA 30030<br>Tel: +1-678-954-0670<br>Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/</div></div> <br>Mino Haluz <mino.haluz@gmail.com> wrote:<br>Thank you, setting ulimits worked! And the performance is the same as<br>stated in the document I mentioned! :)<br><br>One more thing, I found these errors in syslog:<br><br>Sep 13 18:38:18 perftest kamailio[5268]: ERROR: <core><br>[parser/sdp/sdp.c:211]: Invalid payload location<br>Sep 13 18:38:18 perftest kamailio[5268]: ERROR: <core><br>[parser/sdp/sdp.c:227]: Invalid payload location<br>Sep 13 18:38:18 perftest kamailio[5270]: ERROR: <core><br>[parser/sdp/sdp.c:227]: Invalid payload location<br><br>This is possibly something related to my sipp scenario, this is the<br>INVITE sent from sipp<br><br> <![CDATA[<br><br> INVITE sip:800@perftest.vm SIP/2.0<br> Via: SIP/2.0/[transport] 10.0.2.36:[local_port];branch=[branch]<br> From: "700" <sip:500@10.0.2.36>;tag=[call_number]<br> To: <sip:800@perftest.vm><br> Call-ID: [call_id]<br> CSeq: 1 INVITE<br> Contact: "700" <sip:700@10.0.2.36:[local_port]><br> Max-Forwards: 70<br> Subject: Performance Test<br> Content-Type: application/sdp<br> Content-Length: [len]<br><br>v=0<br>o=user1 53655765 2353687637 IN IP[local_ip_type] 10.0.2.36<br>s=-<br>c=IN IP[local_ip_type] 10.0.2.36<br>t=0 0<br>m=audio [auto_media_port] RTP/AVP 8<br>a=rtpmap:8 PCMU/8000<br>a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000<br>a=fmtp:101 0-11,16<br>]]><br><br>Do you see something that could cause this error ? Otherwise the call<br>is initiated ok, but I really dont understand what is so strange to<br>kamailio in this INVITE.<br><br>On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@gmail.com> wrote:<br>> 2012/9/13 Mino Haluz <mino.haluz@gmail.com>:<br>>> You mean on the proxy side? I'm running rtpproxy as root, limits are<br>>> still applied ? ulimit -s unlimited should do the trick ?<br>><br>> Yes, they usually applied even for superuser, and yes - this should<br>> help (if that's the issue).<br>><br>><br>> --<br>> With best regards, Peter Lemenkov.<br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list<br>> sr-users@lists.sip-router.org<br>> http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list<br>sr-users@lists.sip-router.org<br>http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users<br></body>