Virtual Server VS Real Server installation. MY EXPERIENCE

Discussion in '3CX Phone System - General' started by Urbok, Nov 8, 2007.

  1. Urbok

    Urbok New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2007
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello dudes...
    I've compared an installation of 3cx on a virtual server microsoft based and a standard server installation.

    both hardware systems was a 3gb server with dual core 2ghz cpu.

    Standard Server is very fast, no added lag on voice. fantastic quality.

    Virtual server introduces a lot of little problems. No good voice quality, choppy sound. no more than 2-3 contemporaneous calls.
    a lot of LAG on voip calls.

    I suggest to install 3cx Always on a real server and not on virtual!!!
     
  2. ITWorks

    ITWorks New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2007
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    virtual Server

    My experience has been the same as Urbok's. I initially installed as a virtual machine on Server 2003 with server hardware, to provide redundancy in the case of hardware failure. However there were voice quality issues and also gateway lines not hanging up. I switched to an install on a PC running Windows XP and the improvement was dramatic. I have not had any problems and the users comment on how much better voice quality is.
    I would recommend trying base OS install if you experience any problems with a Virtual Machine install.
     
  3. BJReplay

    BJReplay New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    Messages:
    133
    Likes Received:
    0
    My experience hasn't been the same - I had some voice quality issues down to codec negotiation between my preferred voip provider (cheap calls) and 3CX, but once sorted, quality has been great. No special config on the VM - running Win2K EE on MS VS 2005 (latest version) on Win2K EE x64 as host OS. VM configured with 256MB RAM which seems to be heaps. Host is running 2 Dual Core Xeons so has reasonable grunt.

    Very happy with VM deployment.
     
  4. Urbok

    Urbok New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2007
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    0
    wel..
    sure what you say have sense...
    with less hardware specs you cant reach same performance.

    try to install in a p4 server or into a simple dual core pc.
    it seem only a performance question! with VM the performance is bad. (except with a powerfull hardware)
     
  5. iang

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2007
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with BJReplay. I've not had any problems with a VM-based installation of 3cx.

    I'm using the free edition of XenSource on a pretty reasonable box to split servers up. In addition to running 3cx (1 CPU and only 512Mb of RAM) I'm also running a Windows XP (1 CPU and 1024Mb RAM) and an Exchange 2007 with UM (2 CPU and 1536Mb RAM).

    I don't have any issues with quality. I guess it's all to do with the scale of the installation. Mine is pretty small. http://www.3cx.com/forums/categorie...1/hardware-requirements-1945/?highlight=scale provides some guidance.

    Microsoft Virtual Server is a token product to answer VMware. I expect Windows Server 2008 and Viridian will make a big difference.

    Just out of interest, did your VM's and Virtual Server support Intel VT or AMD-V?
     
  6. Urbok

    Urbok New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2007
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    0
    what's your version of 3cx?
    My tests was made on a Intel pentium D 815 installed on a XP pro sp2 host operative system running a server2003 sbs as virtual image with 3cx.

    3gb ram (1,5 to sbs2003 with 3cx)
     
  7. iang

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2007
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Urbok

    I'm using 3.1.2434.0. I'm using XenSource to run those virtual machines. The bare metal has a quad-core processor, but only one core is dedicated to the 3cx system.

    It's been my experience that MS Virtual PC / Server 2005 run the VM's really, really slowly. Especially when it comes to I/O's. I have some customers using MS Virtual Server 2005 to run production virtual servers and they are much slower than you would expect.

    Sorry if I'm teaching Grandma to suck eggs, but have you installed the VMAdditions? It can give you a performance boost. Not having hardware assistance using Intel-VT will also make the response time of the VM SBS very slow.
     
  8. Urbok

    Urbok New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2007
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    0
    yeah. the first thing i've done it's the vmaddition installation.
    I can see that problems comes only with voip, expecially with more than 1 comunication at the same time.

    poor voice quality and choppy sound.
     

Share This Page