[Asterisk-Users] Voicemail with NFS
Douglas Garstang
dgarstang at oneeighty.com
Fri Jun 16 15:49:48 MST 2006
Mike,
Never heard of Unison... do you have a link to it?
Doug.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Diehl [mailto:mdiehl at diehlnet.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 9:41 AM
> To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
> Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Voicemail with NFS
>
>
> I don't know how big your voicemail system is, but have you
> considered using
> Unison to syncronize the vm accross all your servers? I'm
> deploying multiple
> servers with two vm servers, each sync'ed every 5? minutes.
> If one fails,
> the other one should be "good enough."
>
> Just a though,
> Mike
>
> On Friday 16 June 2006 16:14, Brian Capouch wrote:
> > Douglas Garstang wrote:
> > >>Douglas Garstang wrote:
> > >>>I hope someone isn't going to tell me that the voicemail
> > >>
> > >>directory going away is going to cause Asterisk to fall in a
> > >>heap on the floor.
> > >>
> > >> Brian Capouch wrote:
> > >>You never give up on dissing Asterisk, do you, Pococurante?
> > >
> > > This would be acceptable behaviour for you?
> >
> > An NFS-mounted volume isn't ever going to be as reliable as
> one mounted
> > on the local filesystem. You are introducing additional points of
> > failure both with respect to there now being two hard
> drives involved,
> > as well as an interposed network that can fail in a variety of ways.
> >
> > So by definition this arrangement isn't going to be as
> reliable as one
> > based on a native filesystem.
> >
> > And you never have answered the direct question: what do
> you expect the
> > "logical" thing would be to happen if all the sudden an
> important system
> > resource has just gone away?
> >
> > Regardless of the answer (because a rejoinder to that would
> then be, "So
> > add that behavior into Asterisk, or help the developers do
> so . . ") my
> > point isn't that you are finding--actually looking for--places where
> > catastrophic behavior makes Asterisk suffer.
> >
> > The problem is that you don't ever say, "So what are some reasonable
> > things that might be done in this situation;" instead you emit a
> > scathing remark ("fall in a heap on the floor") that would indicate
> > you've discovered some glaring design flaw that any idiot would have
> > known to design around ahead of your "finding" it.
> >
> > It is not automatically the case that if Asterisk doesn't
> do something
> > you think it should do it means that Asterisk is horribly
> and glaringly
> > flawed. But that's what you *always* assume, and you
> always--ALWAYS--do
> > so snidely.
> >
> > Pococurante.
> >
> > B.
> _______________________________________________
> --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --
>
> Asterisk-Users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>
More information about the asterisk-users
mailing list