[asterisk-users] State of Asterisk+Virtualization+Timing

[Warren Selby]

Look at upgrading to at least 1.6.2 or 1.8, these both have newer timing sources that don't rely on dahdi. Also, if conferencing is a big deal, look at 10, this contains a complete rewrite of ConfBridge which doesn't require dahdi for mixing at all. 

Thanks,
--Warren Selby, dCAP

On Nov 1, 2011, at 12:08 PM, Tim Nelson <tnelson at rockbochs.com> wrote:

> Greetings-
> 
> I'm about to dive into the process of virtualizing some of my Asterisk (primarily 1.4.x) infrastructure. In the past, when looking at virt solutions, the primary issue preventing me from moving was the lack of proper timing. We do not need it for MeetMe but rather for IAX2 trunking. I'd like to use either OpenVZ or KVM, but each seem to have independent "issues" that need to be addressed:
> 
> OpenVZ - Better resource usage, lower overhead. Primary issue is how to grant access to host node timing source (physical device, or dahdi_dummy in /dev/dahdi/) to the containerized Asterisk process.
> 
> KVM - Higher overhead, easier installation, 'true virtualization'. Primary issue is not timing per se, but KVM scheduling. Timing source, while present from dahdi_dummy natively may still not get proper scheduling by KVM process. This could also affect general call quality (even non IAX2 trunked voice), DTMF, etc.
> 
> I have to believe there are others running virtualized Asterisk installations with some degree of success on OpenVZ or KVM. Care to share your thoughts?
> 
> --Tim
> 
> --
> _____________________________________________________________________
> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
> New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs:
>               http://www.asterisk.org/hello
> 
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users