[Asterisk-Users] RE: Latest version of asterisk

[T. Chan]

Thanks, Matt !

So, am I correct in assuming that there are quite a few (or alot) of us who
have had not so good experiences with Asterisk? That Asterisk would crash
after it hit a certain number of calls or after a certain period of time
with 15-20 calls? I understand that there were others who were able to send
a good number of calls through but can anyone tell us if they have had
tested and confirmed that Asterisk runs better without or with HT and in
terms of number of calls, how many would each one support, in the ballpark?
It would also be nice if one could tell us the computer configuration in
order to send that many calls without crashing Asterisk. Does it make a
difference running the LAN on a ONBOARD LAN card as compared to a PCI Intel
or 3COM LAN card, since there is a chance that packets are passing more
efficiently on a PCI LAN card?

Side question: Is it possible to do passthrough faxing? Like, customers
sending me H323 or SIP fax calls and the Asterisk will pass through to
another gateway? Anyone successful in doing that?

Tommy

-----Original Message-----
From: asterisk-users-admin at lists.digium.com
[mailto:asterisk-users-admin at lists.digium.com]On Behalf Of mattf
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 8:32 AM
To: 'asterisk-users at lists.digium.com'
Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Latest version of asterisk


Hello,

I've had Asterisk installed on HT capable machines in both HT mode(with SMP)
and non HT mode (with non-SMP) and did not notice any differences
functionally between them. The processor load was always less in HT SMP mode
than non HT and I have experienced Asterisk deadlocks in both modes so it
doesn't really seem to matter if you leave HT on(at least in my
experiences).

HT basically works by splitting off commands to one of two different virtual
processors that both run at about 70% of processor's speed(that's why you
may notice compiling to take longer when in HT mode) I have heard of some
applications having memory addressing errors with HT but I have not seen any
evidence to support that in Asterisk thus far.

I'm going to try installing a 4 x T1 card on my Athlon 2xMP server next week
and see if Asterisk/Digium performance/compatibility improves over the Intel
platform.


MATT---


-----Original Message-----
From: WipeOut [mailto:wipe_out at users.sourceforge.net]
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 2:54 AM
To: asterisk-users at lists.digium.com
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Latest version of asterisk


T. Chan wrote:

>Dear All
>
>Should one enable HT in the chip when running Asterisk or if we don't,
would
>that offer alot less processing power?
>
>T
>
I have read before that HT did not help Asterisk so should be dissabled,
but as the chipsets and other hardware get better at using and
controlling HT it may help..

Run some tests on your system and see what your conclusions are, then
feedback your findings to the list so that others may learn from it..

Later..

_______________________________________________
Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
_______________________________________________
Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users

---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.563 / Virus Database: 355 - Release Date: 1/17/2004

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.563 / Virus Database: 355 - Release Date: 1/17/2004