[asterisk-users] Where is the Digium DS3 card?

Steve Totaro stotaro at totarotechnologies.com
Sun Apr 6 12:43:16 CDT 2008


On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Tzafrir Cohen <tzafrir.cohen at xorcom.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 06, 2008 at 12:12:17PM -0400, Michael Cargile wrote:
> >  <http://www.vicidial.com/>On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Tzafrir Cohen <
> > tzafrir.cohen at xorcom.com> wrote:
>
> (Off-list, and not expecting an on-list reply)
>
> >
> > > We've already connected ~600 analog extensions to Asterisk and we were
> > > far from reaching the bottlenecks. We have used a machine that is hardly
> > > a top-of-the line server (a dual-core Dell machine), with some 20
> > > Astribank 32 FXS-s connected to it.
> > >
>
> (And nicely enough, the point of the message was left unquoted: that 672
> channels are certainly possible, if there's a will.)
>
> >
> >
> > There is big difference between a TDM card and a USB device.
>
> Our device is both a USB device and a TDM one. Analog vs. digital (or
> extension vs. trunk) may be relevant. As for PCI vs. USB - they keep
> telling us USB makes things more complicated :-)
>
> > Also were you
> > actively using all ~600 extensions at once?
>
> No. In those limited tests we made we got to ~200 FXS channels running.
>
> >
> > The system we were building was a predictive dialer. Not only were all
> > channels engaged at one time but we were actively establishing and
> > disconnecting channels at a rate of over 15 per second.
> >
> > Anyone who is looking for a DS3 TDM card is probably not looking to use it
> > to hookup channel banks with it. They are looking to increase their line
> > capacity, thus increasing their number of concurrent channels.
>
> While I don't have your experince, I would still speculate that even for
> trunks the average capacity is not ther same load as that of a
> predictive dialer.
>

I used an Adtran MX2800 to break out 28 T1s (PRI D chan on fourth T1
using NFAS) per quad port server.

As for call setup, hearsay, is that Asterisk is very slow or not
capable of handling high volume call setups.

CallWeaver, forks, or whatever you want to call them are many times
better at setting up SIP calls per second than Asterisk.

I do not have the numbers, I only did inbound, but maybe someone could
elaborate on actual figures.

Thanks,
Steve totaro



More information about the asterisk-users mailing list