[Asterisk-Users] quad fxo

[Michael Sandee]

Steven Critchfield wrote:

>Remember stable refers to change levels, not stability of software.
>Think of it like this, you could have a piece of software that fell over
>dead every time the wind blew, but it would be considered a stable
>version if it didn't change very often over time. Specifically, Todays
>version of stable shouldn't really change unless there is a REALLY good
>reason. Even then, the changes are usually part of a security add-on and
>not part of the main stable release. Changing the PDI ID database could
>potentially break something else that expected that card to slightly
>misrepresent. 
>
Agreed, debian is consistent in their approach.

>All of it is erring on the side of super caution. If you want to ride
>the cutting edge, you can choose the other versions. The choice is how
>much blood are you willing to lose as you ride the cutting edge. The
>closer you go, the more likely a upgrade will break something you hold
>critical.   
>
Agreed. The problem I personally have with Debian is the two extremes 
(Stable/Unstable). Which is why I have changed my preference to some 
other non-profit distro. And I am not alone in this or I would not bring 
it up...

>>I seriously advice against that... vividly remebering the NPTL debacle 
>>in unstable... and loads of other glibc problems you can read about in 
>>the bugtracker.
>>    
>>
>
>I haven't seen any NPTL stuff in debian. My laptop is fairly regularly
>synced with unstable, and the same goes for my home machine. My laptop
>is very stable while my home machine, well I'm still sorting out a
>hardware problem that makes it crash(hard lock, no console messages)
>with heavy network or disk activity.
>
I am happy I did not encounter it myself, I never use unstable myself. I 
think it was around 6 months ago (I could be way off), some updates in 
unstable broke "everything". (These things don't happen often... but I 
can imagine if they do happen...). The other problems I indicated are 
Debian specific glibc problems which conflict with non-standard 
kernels... They were reported for a long time, but not fixed.

>>While we are at the subject anyway I can put some on-topic info here 
>>aswell. Recent benchmarks with 6 QuadBRI's on a Pentium-4 2.8Ghz 
>>resulted in a almost 100% improvement in load under Linux 2.6(.4) over 
>>Linux 2.4(.25). This ofcourse resulted in less (no) quirks in the sound 
>>under 2.6 than under 2.4.
>>The loadtest was done looping the BRI's to each other and in such way 
>>that we used all 24 BRI's (2 channels) resulting in 48 active channels.
>>
>>http://voidptr.astmaster.org/loadtest1.jpg
>>http://voidptr.astmaster.org/loadtest2.jpg
>>
>>The audio quality was easily monitored in contrary to often proposed 
>>"test suites"... Two phones at each end...
>>    
>>
>
>Now when will they be able to work in the US, and what is the pricing
>for the cards?
>
>Truly impressed.
>  
>
I was aswell. I am currently running a system with these cards in 
production and it is performing excellent, both NT P2MP and TE P2P/P2MP. 
All I know is that these cards do not yet work in the US. I wonder 
myself how big the market in the US is for BRI? I was under the 
impression it was extremely expensive, and therefor not really interesting.

Regards