[asterisk-users] Fax for Asterisk success rates?

[Olivier]

2012/10/4 Brett Lehrer <Brett.Lehrer at solarismed.com>

> >What is the setup you're talking about ?
> >Is it something like this ?
> >PSTN ---- nexVortex T.38 gateway ----- Internet ----- DSL modem ---
> >Asterisk ---- Fax machine
> Olivier,
>
> Sorry, I did a poor job explaining that.  That's basically correct, with
> the receiving end first and our originating end last in your diagram.  For
> outgoing faxes only, this is the setup:
>
> Fax interface (LAN website, in short) -> Asterisk PBX -> DSL modem ->
> Internet -> nexVortex trunk -> [recipient]
>
> Incoming faxes are generally more reliable, but I still get small number
> of failures.  I've mistakenly overestimated the incoming failure rate.
>  Don't have clean statistics on that, though.
>

How many fax and voice calls (which codecs for tha latter ones ?) are on
average using your DSL line ?

1. Previously, I experienced failures during the process of converting
incoming PDF documents into ready-to-send fax image files while the reverse
process (from a fax file into a PDF or whatever document) never failed.

I would be curious to check if a greater failure rate for outbound faxing
(greater than inbound faxing failure rate) could simply comes from image
processing, before any transmission.

2. Though your DSL line may have enough bandwidth from your location to its
DSLAM, chances are packets are dropped or delivered too late for T.38
faxing.
An interesting test would be to use an Asterisk PBX hosted somewhere at
"close range" from netVortex fax gateways : that would remove most
networking issues out of the equation.



> Unexplainable FAX call failures (i.e. not wrong numbers of other
>obviously wrong things) should be well below 1%. On a dedicated DSL
>line, if everything is set up properly you should be getting that kind
>of rate. This is especially true if you are using T.38 and the provider
>at the far end uses a decent T.38 platform. Across the open internet
>results are much more variable.

>Depending what causes your 25% failures, you may get better results with
>spandsp than with FFA.

>Steve

> I see, thanks.  All of these faxes are going out to unknown, external
> machines.  I have no control over anything on their ends, and the
> hardware/connection is as variable as you could imagine.  I'll definitely
> look into SpanDSP.  FWIW, the dedicated DSL line is just a 6 Mbps up/768
> Kbps down Internet connection that is solely used by our in-house PBX to
> connect to the trunk.
>
>
> >However I'd just suggest that you look at the business case for screwing
> around with fax at all.
> Oh man, if only...  I'd LOVE to just drop fax completely and use email
> instead.
>
> Brett Lehrer
>
> --
> _____________________________________________________________________
> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
> New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs:
>                http://www.asterisk.org/hello
>
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20121004/511a6c7a/attachment.htm>