[asterisk-users] Asterisk concurrent calls count

[Al Baker]

Glad I was able to foster some good open discussion.
Hopefully DIGIUM will take to heart some  of the thoughts expressed here
and end up with a BETTER SOLUTION for ALL.

Steve Totaro wrote:
> Inline
>
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Tilghman Lesher
> <tilghman at mail.jeffandtilghman.com> wrote:
>   
>> On Friday 16 May 2008 09:11:11 Steve Totaro wrote:
>>     
>>> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
>>>       
>>>> On Friday 16 May 2008 06:59:15 Al Baker wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> this is one very weak area for *. There is NO ANSWER.
>>>>> Now in fairness to *, the answer DOES depend on a # of critical
>>>>> variables. How much CODEC to CODEC transcription is going on.
>>>>> How many MEET Me conferences are going on.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the other hand, DIGIUM COULD, since they have a lab take 4-5
>>>>> 'standard' workloads
>>>>> on two of the most common hardware boxes, say Dell & HP, and run x # of
>>>>> transcriptions and
>>>>> show the #'s.
>>>>> Then x # of meet-me conferences.
>>>>>
>>>>> Face it the DB Industry did this 15-2- YEARS ago with TP benckmarks
>>>>>
>>>>> Rockwell and NORTEL can tell you this for every piece of hardware they
>>>>> sell.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a an area DIGIUM need to "man-up" in.
>>>>>           
>>>> I'm not sure what your problem is with Digium.  They sell several
>>>> machines for which they publish very specific numbers as to how many
>>>> users those machines will support (the Switchvox appliances).  Note that
>>>> these machines are configurable only from the web interface, and they do
>>>> not allow you to install additional software.  In other words, when they
>>>> give you a specific machine, with a ton of those variables controlled,
>>>> they can give you a number.
>>>>
>>>> Digium is under no obligation to give you numbers for your own hardware.
>>>> That's up to you (and you get to control your own set of variables).
>>>>         
>>> It seems any constructive criticism offered, you take as an attack
>>> against Digium.  That is not a good attitude.
>>>       
>> I don't see how you figured out what I was thinking.  Al said Digium doesn't
>> publish any numbers, and I responded, saying that he was incorrect; Digium
>> does indeed publish numbers (they're just not for his hardware).
>>     
>
> "I'm not sure what your problem is with Digium."  Proof, period.
>
>   
>>> While under no obligation, it certainly would help sales.
>>>       
>> Whose sales?  If you're talking about the appliances, then yes, I'm sure the
>> publication of those numbers help with sales.  If you mean your own sales,
>> well, you're right, Digium's numbers probably don't help your sales.  You
>> could certainly put together a lab and do your own testing.  Why don't you do
>> that?
>>     
>
> Sales in general.  You don't need to benchmark everything, just a few
> basic benchmarks, maybe gear it to your hardware and SIP as a gateway,
> then build from there.  Most companies do this.
>
> I have my own lab and bechmarks but they are for Sangoma hardware and
> very specific servers and all geared to callcenter apps.
>
>   
>>> I take "Appliance Numbers" with a grain of salt.  The sales model of
>>> SwitchVox (and most others) is based on number of ports (SoHO, SMB,
>>> Enterprise) not maximum number of ports that the appliance could
>>> actually handle if not artificially constrained.
>>>       
>> Consider the maximum number of ports that Switchvox will enable on a single
>> machine and consider that the maximum number that they're willing to support
>> comfortably without running into some hard limit.  You never want to run into
>> a hard limit in the field anyway.
>>     
>
> High powered ervers are cheap and so are appliances once you settle on
> an enclosure and guts and start cranking out boxes.  Hard limit....
> common.
>
>   
>>> This is in the style of legacy proprietary systems and anther reason
>>> why the sale cycle goes a little tougher than a custom job.  Asterisk
>>> with FreePBX (and maybe Druid) eliminate these artificial constraints
>>> on usage.
>>>       
>> Yes, but the point of those constraints is to permit support a manageable
>> job.  Yes, you could probably add 2 or 3 or 10 or 15 to the number of calls
>> that a particular machine could handle, but from a support perspective, it
>> doesn't matter how many the machine could theoretically handle, it matters
>> how many it could handle in the particular installation in a supportable
>> configuration (those are all those pesky variables we've been talking about).
>>     
>
> Maybe that is what the official corporate answer is or, you were
> brainwashed to believe, but I tend to think it is to sell SMB and
> Enterprise software and support.  It is all about money.  I didn't
> fall off the turnip truck yesterday.
>
>   
>>> I have load averages and CPU usage stats in my mind for all the
>>> various usages and hardware through experience in my mind.  Of course
>>> they are only valuable to the exact setup I was doing.
>>>       
>> Precisely.
>>
>> --
>> Tilghman
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
>>
>> asterisk-users mailing list
>> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>>   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>>
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
>
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>
>
>