Requirements to do HD calls with cucilync or jabber for windows

[Yorick Petey]

Hi everyone,

We are deploying the latest version of cucilync (9.2.5) which is now based on the Jabber framework and contains the Cisco PVE (precision video engine), inherited from Tandberg Movi.

On the current workstations, there is also Cisco Jabber Video (formerly Movi) deployed. The CPU of the workstations are only dual core but "Movi" was able to maintain bidirectional 720p @30fps calls, perfect quality.

With Cucilync, the maximum resolution I got with the same OS and Hardware is 768x432 @30fps. The quality is really not nice... I guess it's the same with Jabber for Windows since it's the same engine.

I cannot find any documentation stating what is the minimum requirements to do HD calls with Cucilync 9.x or Jabber for windows.
Since cucilync and jabber implement the PVE engine of movi, I assume the video capabilities and quality should be the same... But it's not, according to my real-life tests.

Thank you for your feedbacks if you have any information.

Yorick

[Gonzalo Gasca Meza]

Hi Yorick,

Probably a dumb question, but what are to testing against? Same destination number, I assume using same Video camera/Network Interface? (e.g TelePresence Server)

If you do a CPU profiling utilization of Jabber Movi vs CUCIlync how does that look like? Higher CPU utilization in CUCIlync?

A most detailed analisys using a packet capture can tell us the supported resolutions (H2.64 bit stream)

[Yorick Petey]

Hi Gonzalo,

Yes, exactly, from and to the same workstations:

- movi to movi, controlled by the VCS-C

- cucilync to cucilync, controlled by the CUCM 9.1

I did not compare the CPU utilization so far, I will do this next time I'll be onsite.

Since the new cucilync and jabber implement the PVE, inherited from Movi, I thought the capability in term of resolutions and quality would be the same... And even if I accept to have a SD resolution only, I feel that the image is still not nice, we see all the pixels instead of having a global blur over the image to smooth it. Disappointing...

Keep you updated!

Thanks!

[Gonzalo Gasca Meza]

Hi Yorick,

This is an extract from a 9.2.6 Jabber for Windows log (csf-unified.log)

It shows the cpve version, maybe you can look if same|higher version is used by CUCILync?

2014-02-18 16:17:55,178 INFO  [0x0000139c] [lcontrol\CallControlManagerImpl.cpp(242)] [csf.ecc] [ecc::CallControlManagerImpl::logVersionInfo] - ### Media Provider Version:

********************************************************************************

Version Information:

Name: csf2g-cpve

Version: 1.317(15.145457) Build Date: Friday, September 06, 2013, 15:58:30 SVN:

https://wwwin-svn-sjc.cisco.com/jabber-all/jabber/migrate/cpve/tags/releases/1.317.15

: 145457 Build Script SVN:

https://wwwin-svn-sjc.cisco.com/core-grp/csf-core/core/trunk/scripts/build

:

Svn Externals:

Dependencies:

********************************************************************************

2014-02-18 16:17:55,178 INFO  [0x0000139c] [lcontrol\CallControlManagerImpl.cpp(181)] [csf.ecc] [ecc::CallControlManagerImpl::CallControlManagerImpl] - <---