<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div><br></div></div><blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote" style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><div><div><div><div>On Jun 22, 2010, at 4:12 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:</div></div></div></div><div><div><div><br></div></div></div><div><div><div><div>Your timeout to ast_waitfor() is 100ms. As it is written, you will be </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div>calling ast_read() on the channel every time it times out, and not just </div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div>when you're actually supposed to.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><div><div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Thank you, but I think there is more going on here. I just raised it to 250 (I have played with other values before), and am getting the same results -- far more AST_FRAME_NULLs than seems right. With a value of 250, I should be getting no more than 4 AST_FRAME_NULL's per second of each call, correct? I'm seeing calls complete with several hundred null frames being discarded, even though the calls are only around 30 seconds in length.<br><br><br></div></div></div></div></body></html>