[Asterisk-Users] Voicemail with NFS

[Douglas Garstang]

Mike,

Never heard of Unison... do you have a link to it?

Doug.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Diehl [mailto:mdiehl at diehlnet.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 9:41 AM
> To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
> Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Voicemail with NFS
> 
> 
> I don't know how big your voicemail system is, but have you 
> considered using 
> Unison to syncronize the vm accross all your servers?  I'm 
> deploying multiple 
> servers with two vm servers, each sync'ed every 5? minutes.  
> If one fails, 
> the other one should be "good enough."
> 
> Just a though,
> Mike
> 
> On Friday 16 June 2006 16:14, Brian Capouch wrote:
> > Douglas Garstang wrote:
> > >>Douglas Garstang wrote:
> > >>>I hope someone isn't going to tell me that the voicemail
> > >>
> > >>directory going away is going to cause Asterisk to fall in a
> > >>heap on the floor.
> > >>
> > >>  Brian Capouch wrote:
> > >>You never give up on dissing Asterisk, do you, Pococurante?
> > >
> > > This would be acceptable behaviour for you?
> >
> > An NFS-mounted volume isn't ever going to be as reliable as 
> one mounted
> > on the local filesystem.  You are introducing additional points of
> > failure both with respect to there now being two hard 
> drives involved,
> > as well as an interposed network that can fail in a variety of ways.
> >
> > So by definition this arrangement isn't going to be as 
> reliable as one
> > based on a native filesystem.
> >
> > And you never have answered the direct question: what do 
> you expect the
> > "logical" thing would be to happen if all the sudden an 
> important system
> > resource has just gone away?
> >
> > Regardless of the answer (because a rejoinder to that would 
> then be, "So
> > add that behavior into Asterisk, or help the developers do 
> so . . ") my
> > point isn't that you are finding--actually looking for--places where
> > catastrophic behavior makes Asterisk suffer.
> >
> > The problem is that you don't ever say, "So what are some reasonable
> > things that might be done in this situation;" instead you emit a
> > scathing remark ("fall in a heap on the floor") that would indicate
> > you've discovered some glaring design flaw that any idiot would have
> > known to design around ahead of your "finding" it.
> >
> > It is not automatically the case that if Asterisk doesn't 
> do something
> > you think it should do it means that Asterisk is horribly 
> and glaringly
> > flawed.  But that's what you *always* assume, and you 
> always--ALWAYS--do
> > so snidely.
> >
> > Pococurante.
> >
> > B.
> _______________________________________________
> --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --
> 
> Asterisk-Users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>