[asterisk-ss7] Strange interrupt issue with zaptel and chan_ss7
Michael D Schelin
mike at shelcomm.com
Wed Jul 12 10:26:54 MST 2006
We had timing slips when receiving faxes. In Linux we adjusted the
priority levels for the devices like the cards and the Hard Drive.
Problem solved.
P.B. wrote:
> The card does not behave any different if all channels are idle or if
> all channels are used - In fact the card can not even tell the
> difference. The driver reads and writes audio samples on free and on
> used channels no matter what. The difference between no calls and 24
> simultaneous calls is the processor load of the system. With the
> processor load also interrupt latency increases - not linearly though.
> So depending on the cards buffer, if the card is not being serviced in
> time, frame slips occur and audio and/or hdlc frames are lost.
> If another interrupt is being handled (keyboard, harddisk, ethernet) it
> will be serviced and will further increase interrupt latency, sometimes
> to the point where a buffer overrun (slip) occurs.
>
> The strange behavior between P4 and AMD could be because of slightly
> different bus timings on the PCI bus and a faulty card which barely made
> the pci specs.
>
> m.f.G.
> Peter
>
> Kai Militzer wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I solved my problem, so I tought I give you an update.
>>
>>> Then finaly I came across the behavior that puzzles me. Asterisk was
>>> running with two instances over the crosslink and the console screen
>>> was blanked on the console. So I wanted to press Shift to unblank it,
>>> but accidently pressed the CapsLock key. When the screen was
>>> unblanked and I started to type, I realized, that CapLock was on. I
>>> pressed it again and in this moment, I got a CRC16 error. I thought
>>> that was strange and pressed it again twice, and there it was again,
>>> Packets from the zaptel driver to chan_ss7 got lost. The same
>>> behavior happens, when I press ScollLock or NumLock. The Keyboard
>>> runs on interrupt 1 and the TE205P on IRQ11, so there shouldn't be
>>> any impact when the keyboard uses this interrupt.
>>
>> I got the card interchanged with a new one from my distributor. With
>> the new card, the problem does not exsists. So the reason for the
>> strange behavior was a faulty hardware. That's OK, things like that
>> can happen, but what I cannot understand is, that the tests shipped
>> with the zaptel source did not detect it.
>>
>> If I understand correctly patlooptest should reveal problems with bad
>> cards, but it went through without problems on my faulty card. I think
>> the problem is, that the error I had only surfaced, when a channel in
>> the span was completely used (i.e. the complete bandwith of 64kbit is
>> used by the signaling channel for SS7). I think that patlooptest does
>> not use the full bandwith of a channel and therefore does not detect
>> the error and it tests only one (the first) channel of a span. As I am
>> not a developer and my C knowledge tends to zero, I am not sure, if my
>> claim is right. But if it is, zaptel IMHO needs a test, that uses the
>> full bandwith of more than one channel to detect faulty cards.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Kai
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --
>
> asterisk-ss7 mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-ss7
>
>
More information about the asterisk-ss7
mailing list