[hydra-dev] Still confused, but at a higher level

[Olle E. Johansson]

12 apr 2010 kl. 12.03 skrev Ed Guy:

> 
> It seems we agree that one requirement is the scale target is 'really big'.
> We should probably come up with specific goal numbers for subscribers
> counts,
> voice & video calls per second, and messages per second.  ( and ? )
So what's the problem. With current server architecture we can handle 10.000 calls,
with the next generation that will be out before hydra is out, I guess we can handle much 
more. So how many enterprises need that?

The distributed model might be the missing link, but not for call handling, more for queues
and blinking lamps and such. That's something we can solve with a XMPP or SIP presence
server in the middle - without ice.

> 
> I agree with you in that we seem a bit bipolar of the asterisk 2.0 issue.
> Hydra could be a globally unifying extension to the current asterisk,
> not a replacement for it.
> A tactic to enable this would be to create channel drivers, etc. to make
> it part of the borg.
The moment we start discussing channel drivers for Hydra, it has become
Asterisk 2.0 and we can't convince anyone that it's something else.

If scalability is the keyword - define "scalability". And define target market.

/O
> 
> Then hydra 1.0 could accompany asterisk for 2.0 and could become
> asterisk 3.0.
> 
> /ed, who is also jet lagged.
> 
> 
> On 4/12/10 4:13 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>> Friends,
>> 
>> After one week in Mexico I'm still a bit confused - which is to no surprise.
>> 
>> What keeps me confused is that our meeting started with "This is not Asterisk 2.0" but all we discuss and all cases point to Asterisk 2.0. All demonstrations pointed to Asterisk 2.0.
>> 
>> What is the scope of Hydra? Can we produce anything that will not be understood by our customers as Asterisk 2.0?
>> 
>> Or is this simply Asterisk 2.0 we're doing, and let's forget about it not being the software that will replace Asterisk.
>> 
>> I feel that we need to define this product now. Before discussing rpc platforms or any other thing. What is the need we're trying to fulfill? What hole in the market place are we trying to occupy? Without a project scope we have no clue on where we're going and any discussion about ice or boost is just a hacker's discussion and nothing else. If I signed the bill, I would definitely stop doing that before we had a product plan we can communicate.
>> 
>> And no, I have nothing against defining Asterisk 2.0. All my notes from the beach is about Asterisk 2.0 - not Hydra as it was presented in the first few slides.
>> 
>> Greetings from a jetlagged hacker, back in Sweden.
>> 
>> /O
>> _______________________________________________
>> Project Hydra Development Discussion List
>> NOTE: All content you receive from this list is should be treated as confidential.
>> 
>> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>>   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/hydra-dev
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Project Hydra Development Discussion List
> NOTE: All content you receive from this list is should be treated as confidential.
> 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/hydra-dev

---
* Olle E Johansson - oej at edvina.net
* Cell phone +46 70 593 68 51, Office +46 8 96 40 20, Sweden