[Asterisk-Users] app_queue, fewestcalls and leastrecent logic

[Mark Spencer]

It would if the user was *busy* not if they don't answer.

Mark

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, Brian West wrote:

> It just rings the fewestcalls or leastrecent over and over.. it doesn't
> hunt one bit right now.  Thats why I posted to the list so Mark could get
> an idea of what people would like to see before he fixes fewestcalls and
> leastrecent logic.
>
> bkw
>
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, Jim Friedeck wrote:
>
> > In our original spec for Digium, leastrecent was specifically 'agent who
> > answered a call longest ago for that queue'. (not a direct quote) It
> > would then go to the next agent in order of 'longest go'. Has this
> > changed? Does it immediatly go roundrobin by agent number or agent load
> > order? Thanks.
> >
> > Jim Friedeck
> >
> > ------------------------------------------
> >
> > Brian West wrote:
> >
> > >Ok just had my boss point something out:
> > >
> > >"I'd think dumping calls on most-idle would be fairly straightforward, but
> > >could be skewed if agentA is on a 40 minute call, agentB has a bunch of 5
> > >minute calls"
> > >
> > >So total call time should be counted in the logic somewhere.
> > >
> > >bkw
> > >
> > >On Sun, 10 Aug 2003, Brian West wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>I think we are starting to see what type of logic people are wanting in
> > >>fewestcalls and leastrecent strategy.
> > >>
> > >>bkw
> > >>
> > >>On Sun, 10 Aug 2003, Richard Lyman wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>i disagree, instead of thinking 'fallback' how about 'order' the agents
> > >>>(by effecting the 'metric') so you 'target' the agent you want first
> > >>>then if fail they go right to the next one in the 'ordered' list.
> > >>>
> > >>>Brian West wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>leastrecent suffers the same fait as fewestcalls onlying ringing the
> > >>>>leastrecent agent over and over endlessly.  It should have a fallback
> > >>>>option.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>roundrobin with leastrecent first
> > >>>>roundrobin with fewestcalls first
> > >>>>
> > >>>>I would like to see a roundrobin with leastbusy first option.
> > >>>>(just because you have taken less call or leastrecent doesn't mean you
> > >>>>haven't been a busy agent!)
> > >>>>
> > >>>>I'm sure better autologoff logic as per my first email would be a great
> > >>>>idea also.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>bkw
> > >>>>
> > >>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2003, Richard Lyman wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>well if you ask me, the leastrecent part would work if you reversed the
> > >>>>>logic on the metric.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>my other last_used mod would do a time_t on that agent the last time it
> > >>>>>was 'tried' (ast_request'd) then (i was using arrays) qsort so that (new
> > >>>>>agents) '0' would be on top, and the agent that got the most recent
> > >>>>>attempt would be on the bottom '1057174447' (below is an example)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>   -- sorted agent array: 317 last_used: 0
> > >>>>>   -- sorted agent array: 318 last_used: 0
> > >>>>>   -- sorted agent array: 319 last_used: 0
> > >>>>>   -- sorted agent array: 300 last_used: 1057174447
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>that way, (for leastrecent anyway), you are always working with a full stack of agents.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Brian West wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>First of all I would like to thank Mark for getting roundrobin to go
> > >>>>>>roundrobin.  Good job.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>Now we have some options here for leastrecent and fewestcalls strategy. It
> > >>>>>>needs some work on the logic and Mark recommend that I ask the list and
> > >>>>>>get some input before he makes any changes to it.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>fewestcalls from what I have seen would always ring the agent with the
> > >>>>>>fewestcalls first then go into roundrobin if that agent didn't answer.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>Next new caller would ring fewestcalls agent first then start roundrobin.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>What do you think should happen in fewestcalls?  Right now it just rings
> > >>>>>>the agent with the fewestcalls over and over with current app_queue logic.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>leastrecent from what I have been looking at will ring the agent that has
> > >>>>>>least recently take a call first then if they don't answer go into
> > >>>>>>roundrobin.  Then the next new call coming from queue would first go to
> > >>>>>>the leastrecent first then try every agent in roundrobin till answered
> > >>>>>>then starting over again.  New caller from queue hits leastrecent agent
> > >>>>>>first.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>Same thing happens in leastrecent strategy. The leastrecent agent will
> > >>>>>>ring over and over with current app_queue logic.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>Now some of you might recommend autologoff options.  But that also might
> > >>>>>>need some work.  I don't want to log off an agent for not answering the
> > >>>>>>phone only once.  So here is how I would like to see autologoff work.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>Example:
> > >>>>>>queue timeout = 20
> > >>>>>>agent autologoff = 60
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>The agent would have to not answer their phone 3 times in a row to get
> > >>>>>>logged off.  As it stands now they did not answer just once and get logged
> > >>>>>>off.  Thus allow for an employee to use the excuse for not working when
> > >>>>>>they should be logged in and taking calls.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>Unless i'm wrong here.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>Please post your input on these options and how you would like them to see
> > >>>>>>them function function.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>Thanks,
> > >>>>>>Brian
> > >>>>>>CWIS Internet Services
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>_______________________________________________
> > >>>>>>Asterisk-Users mailing list
> > >>>>>>Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
> > >>>>>>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>_______________________________________________
> > >>>>>Asterisk-Users mailing list
> > >>>>>Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
> > >>>>>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>_______________________________________________
> > >>>>Asterisk-Users mailing list
> > >>>>Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
> > >>>>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>_______________________________________________
> > >>>Asterisk-Users mailing list
> > >>>Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
> > >>>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>_______________________________________________
> > >>Asterisk-Users mailing list
> > >>Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
> > >>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >Asterisk-Users mailing list
> > >Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
> > >http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Asterisk-Users mailing list
> > Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
> > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Asterisk-Users mailing list
> Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>