[asterisk-users] Performance issues

[Tilghman Lesher]

On Wednesday 09 July 2008 16:50:09 Steve Totaro wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Tilghman Lesher <
>
> tilghman at mail.jeffandtilghman.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 09 July 2008 14:06:56 Thameem Ansari wrote:
> > > There is no performance impact if you use AGI or DeadAGI.
> >
> > There is a performance impact, in terms of the time it takes for
> > the process to start up.  It may be measured in fractions of a second,
> > but there certainly is a performance penalty.  It is not zero.
>
> Do you mean they both have the same penalty or is one worse than the other?

That would depend upon the particular process that is starting up.  Certainly
Perl, Ruby, and PHP AGIs have a worse startup penalty than an AGI written in
C, for example.  My point was that there is a performance penalty, contrary to
what the previous author in the thread asserted.

> > > The only
> > > difference is, if you use AGI it will not continue executing the
> > > dialplan if the calling party hangsup the call. DeadAgi, will continue
> > > executing
> >
> > the
> >
> > > dialplan and its upto the applications responsibility to hangup the
> > > channel. So, the application should be aggressive enough to hangup the
> > > channel to avoid wrong cdr durations.
> >
> > DeadAGI is not recommended and is not supported for channels which are
> > not already hungup (and invoked from the "h" extension in the dialplan).
>
> Not recommended and not supported would imply it doesn't work.  I think it
> works so who doesn't support it and why not?

It may work to some degree, but it is not the intended usage.  If you report a
bug related to the fact that you run a command that is meant to be used only
on a hungup channel, and you're using a live channel, it will be closed, as
that functionality is not supported.

-- 
Tilghman