Vasil Kolev wrote: > В 07:03 +0000 на 06.02.2008 (ср), Julian Lyndon-Smith написа: > >>>> The vast majority of open source packages out there build optimized by >>>> default. >> Has anyone actually measured the difference between OPTIMIZEd and >> DONT_OPTIMIZEd ? I compile and build with DONT_OPTIMIZE and have _never_ >> seen any performance related problems. > > I have seen the difference in CPU usage between the optimized and > non-optimized version to be something like 4% CPU usage on the otpimized > and about 30-40% cpu usage on the non-optimized one on a machine that > was terminating SIP calls to a 4xPRI card (something like 60-70 parallel > calls most of the time).
wow. We don't have anywhere near that: A single core cpu, 1GB ram running 3xE1 lines with 140 extensions (with 20-50 calls at any time) is peaking at 20% cpu This is with a Non-optimized compiler setting. > > Non-optimized is a BAD idea for production. > > Also, my 2c - most projects have _separate_ build options and builds for > debugging, and it should be the users' choice what to use. Most users > don't participate in the debugging and would prefer the performance :) > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email for dotr.com has been scanned by MessageLabs > ______________________________________________________________________ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- > > asterisk-dev mailing list > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev Julian _______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-dev mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
