<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
PC's age and when they age, things tend to go wrong, particularly when
you upgrade software. Unusual crashes are usually the first sign that
something is going wrong.<br>
<br>
To me, it sounds like you've put the money into many of the right areas
- segregating your voice and data networks, going with decent phones
and ensuring your power is reliable so it just seems a little strange
to go cheap on the actual server.<br>
<br>
It sounds like you've been pretty lucky with this machine - not all
desktop machines are going to be anywhere near that reliable. The big
thing that server grade machines give you is better quality of parts
that have been extensively tested with a range of operating systems. I
guess it's up to you - personally, I'd take the warning signs and start
planning to replace the server. Possibly I'm just a little more
cautious than some. :)<br>
<br>
<br>
Ira wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:0MKpCa-1JGTh22TQp-0008Hd@mrelay.perfora.net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">At 04:44 AM 1/19/2008, you wrote:
Well, it's been very reliable. It's been running 24/7 for 2 years and
the only problems have been my putting bugs in the dial plan,
problems with SIP providers going broke and trying 1.4. So how
exactly would more expensive hardware have improved my reliability?
I really wanted it to be reliable. I ran a duplicate network for the
phones so they don't share bandwidth, I bought good phones.
Everything is POE with the POE switch, the Asterisk box and all the
networking stuff to the outside on a big UPS.
Do you actually think the odds of a HP desktop sitting on a UPS in a
cool corner doing nothing suddenly dying are much greater than a
bottom end server box doing the same? It seems to me unless I want
to go dual PS and flash drives that I'm not going to do much better
than I have now.
Ira
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">What you run it on is very much a function of how reliable you want
the system to be. The better the hardware, the more reliable it
will be. If you're running in a business environment, then I
wouldn't recommend anything less than server grade - even if it's
low end server grade. The company I work for supplies either Dell
PowerEdge 860s (1RU servers that are similar in price to an upper
mid-range desktop) or Dell PowerEdge 840s (tower cases that are
similar in price to a mid-range desktop)
Running on cheap hardware is a great way to cost yourself more in
the long run - in lost productivity, lost sales and IT support.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Except that it's been running 1.2 for 2 years with no problems. It
has to handle all of about 20 to 30 calls/day so it's not really
under much load and I see no reason why it should be a problem. If
not for the TDM404 I would probably try to put it on a NSLU2. What
would you recommend I run it on?
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
_______________________________________________
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.api-digital.com">http://www.api-digital.com</a> --
asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users">http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>