<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Tilghman Lesher <<a href="mailto:tilghman@mail.jeffandtilghman.com">tilghman@mail.jeffandtilghman.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">On Wednesday 09 July 2008 14:06:56 Thameem Ansari wrote:<br>
> There is no performance impact if you use AGI or DeadAGI.<br>
<br>
</div>There is a performance impact, in terms of the time it takes for<br>
the process to start up. It may be measured in fractions of a second,<br>
but there certainly is a performance penalty. It is not zero.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"></div></blockquote><div><br>Do you mean they both have the same penalty or is one worse than the other?<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> The only<br>
> difference is, if you use AGI it will not continue executing the dialplan<br>
> if the calling party hangsup the call. DeadAgi, will continue executing the<br>
> dialplan and its upto the applications responsibility to hangup the<br>
> channel. So, the application should be aggressive enough to hangup the<br>
> channel to avoid wrong cdr durations.<br>
<br>
</div>DeadAGI is not recommended and is not supported for channels which are<br>
not already hungup (and invoked from the "h" extension in the dialplan).<br>
</blockquote><div><br>Not recommended and not supported would imply it doesn't work. I think it works so who doesn't support it and why not?<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
--<br>
Tilghman<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br></div></blockquote><div> </div></div><br>