[asterisk-users] RAMDisk vs Extarnal server for recording
astmattf at gmail.com
Wed Oct 21 10:11:38 CDT 2009
We use RAM to record to on almost all systems we set up, although we
usually use tmpfs, instead of a fixed RAM drive, because it is more
The number of recordings you can handle is dependant on how long the
calls are. What would your average, minimum, maximum recording lengths
We usually do not do more than 100 concurrent recordings on a single
server, but we have done up to 250 before successfully.
On 10/21/09, Robin <robin at zoap.org> wrote:
> Thanks for your response.
> The hardware I have now is not sufficient to set up a ramdisk (just 4 gb)...
> But memory is rather cheap nowadays. If i'd buf up the server with 8 extra
> gigs for use as a ramdrive, do you think that might be enough to record
> between 30-60 simultanious streams? Or should it be way more?
> btw, I found this thread somewhere:
> but this is rather old info. Is this documentation still usefull? And if
> not, do you happen to have any idea/url/doc where I can find a bit less old
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 13:21, Zoaaaaa <zoachien at securax.org> wrote:
> > There are 2 issues i think, one is the seek time on harddisks and the
> > lack of a big buffer in Asterisk (saving 10 streams at the same time
> > will cause a loooot of random writes).
> > The other one is the interrupts being taken up by the harddisk.
> > So an SSD might help, saving to an network drive might help (it moves
> > the issue to another server, where it might not cause a problem),
> > buffering to ram (but you will lack space).
> > The best solution depends on your exact hardware and the amount of
> > writes you want to do.
> > Buffering to a ramdrive before moving it over NFS seems like the best
> > idea to me.
> > Zoa
> > Robin wrote:
> > > I'm having loads of problems with recordings, as in crappy audio
> > > quality and lost pieces of the recordings. I've been searching for a
> > > solution and the solutions i find on the interwebs include a ramdisk,
> > > for local recording, or another machine, handling the recording. I
> > > guess the ramdisk would be the "easy" solution and the external
> > > machine would be little harder to set up. I do actually prefer the
> > > external machine, but i'm not exaclty sure how to set that one up...
> > > The reason I prefer the external machine, is that the recording have
> > > to be moved to an external machine anyway. Although I've come across a
> > > post somewhere, talking about recording to ramdisk and then move the
> > > files over a crosscable directly to another disk over 1000mbit. Which
> > > sound nice as well...
> > >
> > > What do you advise for bringing serverload down and get rid of the
> > > harddisk bottleneck? Is a ramdisk a better solution then an external
> > > machine? And if so, why?
> > >
> > > Sorry about this pro-con question, but I cannot find an answer which
> > > compares these pro-cons anywhere.
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > >
> > > robin
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
> > >
> > > asterisk-users mailing list
> > > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
> > asterisk-users mailing list
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
More information about the asterisk-users