Friday, November 21, 2008

Performance of Mobicents Media Server 1.0.0.CR3

Yesterday I did a performance test of Mobicent Media Server 1.0.0.CR3 on my laptop (Dell D620, Dual Core, 2GB RAM) with server and mms load test client running on same machine. The test was made for 50 concurrent announcements of an average length of announcement 3.74 Seconds. The codec used by UA test client was G711 A-law. The test lasted for 34487595 seconds or 9.58 hours (I stopped test and machine after this as I wanted to move to office ;) ). Number of announcements completed were 231202 out of which only 292 failed which means failure rate of 0.1262 %. The number of successful announcement were 231198. The load on CPU was on an average 60%. This indicates that max load on MMS can be further increased and hence more concurrent announcement

If we calculate the Erlang Number based on this statistics 3.74 (avg announcement in sec) * 231202 (completed announcement ) * 1000 (convert to milli sec ) / 34487595 = 25E. The call set-up and tear down takes time. The signaling used was MGCP stack on client/test tool side and MGCP RA + mgcp-controller-sbb on MMS server side.

These are definitely much better numbers compared to what MMS was capable of before CR3 release.

Performance is always relative to what you are trying to achieve. Its directly proportional to environment, application and fine tunning in addition to what one is trying to measure. Try the MMS performance in your environment, the load test tool is available at

Soon we will execute load test on actual server and expecting the numbers to be much greater than reported here ... stay tunned!


oleg.kulikoff said...

Nice test, Amit!

The next test should load one channel for greater value of time to reduce signaling affect to get a clean performance in Erlangs.


amit.bhayani said...

Right Oleg. I will add announcement wav files for 1 hour instead of 3.7 sec.

Anonymous said...

Can anyone recommend the top Script Deployment software for a small IT service company like mine? Does anyone use or How do they compare to these guys I found recently: [url=] N-able N-central remote pc access software
[/url] ? What is your best take in cost vs performance among those three? I need a good advice please... Thanks in advance!