<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY text=#000000 bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=835020318-03032006><FONT face=Verdana
color=#0000ff size=2>way to go Matt!</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> asterisk-users-bounces@lists.digium.com
[mailto:asterisk-users-bounces@lists.digium.com] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Matt
Roth<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, March 02, 2006 11:51 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Asterisk
Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re:
[Asterisk-Users] Lowering Server Load<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>All,<BR><BR>Just a quick update on our progress with the RAM disk
solution for digitally recording large numbers of calls via Monitor. We
are currently recording approximately 80 - 100 concurrent calls to the PCM
format on our production server. We also have over 220 dynamic agents
logged into 10 queues handling calls across 4 offices (1 local, 3
remote). All of our calls are SIP to SIP (a Cisco AS5400 terminates our
Ts) using the u-Law codec and we do no transcoding or DSP on the Asterisk
box. Yesterday, a total of over 8300 calls were handled. The box
is running roughly 77% - 80% idle.<BR><BR>As we add more clients to the box,
I'll update the list with the results.<BR><BR>For more details of our setup
see here <A class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E
href="http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.telephony.pbx.asterisk.user/118497"><http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.telephony.pbx.asterisk.user/118497></A>
and here <A class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E
href="http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/2005-October/127919.html"><http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/2005-October/127919.html></A>.<BR><BR>Matthew
Roth<BR>InterMedia Marketing Solutions<BR>Software Engineer and Systems
Developer<BR><BR>Ron McCarthy wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE
cite=mid3885f4fe0603020715l58a0c93fn90238748d33df407@mail.gmail.com
type="cite">Also, SATA on a onboard SATA card will eat more CPU then a SCSI
system. Are you running software RAID by chance with your SATA? SCSI or SCSI
Raid will not each CPU near as much since the HBA does all the work and does
tie up the CPU with all its I/O's. We have successfulyl recorded 5+ calls at
a time via dual xeon 3.0 with 10K SCSI drives in RAID-5 with no issuses
running about 30 PRI channels and anywhere from 50-75 SIP channels, all with
g729 encoding.<BR><BR>Hope this helps!<BR>Ron<BR><BR>
<DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote>On 3/2/06, <B class=gmail_sendername>Anton
Krall</B> <<A
href="mailto:akrall-lists@intruder.com.mx">akrall-lists@intruder.com.mx</A>>
wrote:</SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">Yep,
I tried it and indeed, it lowers cpu usage, so I switched from wav
to<BR>gsm format and Im thinking about doing the ramdisk solution for
recording...<BR>Sounds like a good
move?</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>