<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Steve Underwood <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:steveu@coppice.org">steveu@coppice.org</a>></span> 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="im">On 05/08/2010 08:15 AM, Steve Totaro wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Martin <<a href="mailto:asterisklist@callthem.info">asterisklist@callthem.info</a><br>
</div><div class="im">> <mailto:<a href="mailto:asterisklist@callthem.info">asterisklist@callthem.info</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Steve Totaro<br>
> <<a href="mailto:stotaro@totarotechnologies.com">stotaro@totarotechnologies.com</a><br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5">> <mailto:<a href="mailto:stotaro@totarotechnologies.com">stotaro@totarotechnologies.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
> > Yes, I purchased licenses for Fax for Asterisk and yes I called<br>
> tech support<br>
> > and had the WORST experience I have ever had with any technical<br>
> support<br>
> > call.<br>
> ><br>
> > I am running Asterisk 1.6.2.6 and:<br>
> ><br>
> > FAX For Asterisk Components:<br>
> > Applications: 1.6.2.0_1.2.0<br>
> > voipgw01Digium FAX Driver: 1.6.2.0_1.2.0 (optimized for c3_2_32)<br>
> ><br>
> > The guy was arrogant and absolutely a jerk and I don't like to<br>
> call people<br>
> > names, but call it as I see it. This has not been my experience<br>
> the five or<br>
> > six times I have had to call Digium over the years, but it has<br>
> been many<br>
> > years since my last call so I have no idea what the general<br>
> support staff is<br>
> > like.<br>
> ><br>
> > I could not get any questions answered by the tech that took<br>
> hours to call<br>
> > me back to tell me to read the readme. That would be all well<br>
> and good if I<br>
> > didn't pay money.<br>
> ><br>
> > He could not explain Digium's math as far as faxing and failed<br>
> to offer to<br>
> > get back to me with any kind of answer.<br>
> ><br>
> > Maybe someone on the list can make sense of this Enron style of<br>
> accounting:<br>
> ><br>
> > voipgw01*CLI> fax show stats<br>
> > voipgw01*CLI><br>
> > FAX Statistics:<br>
> > ---------------<br>
> ><br>
> > Current Sessions : 1<br>
> > Transmit Attempts : 0<br>
> > Receive Attempts : 336<br>
> > Completed FAXes : 320<br>
> > Failed FAXes : 57<br>
> ><br>
> > Digium G.711<br>
> > Licensed Channels : 4<br>
> > Max Concurrent : 1<br>
> > Success : 0<br>
> > Switched to T.38 : 0<br>
> > Canceled : 0<br>
> > No FAX : 1<br>
> > Partial : 0<br>
> > Negotiation Failed : 0<br>
> > Train Failure : 3<br>
> > Protocol Error : 0<br>
> > IO Partial : 0<br>
> > IO Fail : 0<br>
> > voipgw01*CLI><br>
> > Digium T.38<br>
> > Licensed Channels : 4<br>
> > Max Concurrent : 4<br>
> > Success : 175<br>
> > Canceled : 0<br>
> > No FAX : 6<br>
> > Partial : 19<br>
> > Negotiation Failed : 0<br>
> > Train Failure : 83<br>
> > Protocol Error : 33<br>
> > IO Partial : 0<br>
> > IO Fail : 0<br>
> ><br>
> > Thanks,<br>
> > Steve Totaro<br>
><br>
><br>
> wow definitely the acc"counting" engine is broken ...<br>
><br>
> I can only make sense of this<br>
><br>
> > Receive Attempts : 336<br>
> > Completed FAXes : 320<br>
> > Failed FAXes : 57<br>
><br>
> 1) your receive app was called 336 times but the fax hanged up before<br>
> negotiating<br>
> 2) you had 320 of this completed (partially or fully)<br>
> 3) but 57 out of 320 failed to transmit entirely<br>
><br>
> 57/320=17.8% which is too high for a commercial product IHMO<br>
><br>
> Martin<br>
><br>
><br>
> Considering that this is a direct cross connect from Leve3's cage to<br>
> my my cage in the same DC at an Equinix facility, 100Mb DIA w/EIPT<br>
> VoIP service, I would expect nearly 100% success.<br>
><br>
> Considering the circuit was just turned up and there is no data except<br>
> Level3's phone traffic. They are our carrier, RespOrg, origination<br>
> and termination, no 3rd parties, all on net.<br>
><br>
> I could understand if it was a peaked out DIA circuit to some cut rate<br>
> VoIP provider, but not under "perfect" circumstances.<br>
><br>
> Thanks,<br>
> Steve Totaro<br>
</div></div>Were these all test calls made from a well defined source? It takes<br>
*two* correctly working FAX terminals to make a successful call. Its<br>
easy to get a high failure rate for silly reasons. In volume testing of<br>
spandsp and iaxmodem we had times where a high percentage of calls<br>
failed, which turned out to be just one rouge machine calling over and<br>
over again trying to achieve success. On the other hand, failures<br>
between known good FAX terminals should be far below 1%.<br>
<br>
Steve<br>
<font color="#888888"></font><br></blockquote><div><br>These are not test calls. These are real world calls from a real world.<br><br>Since this is Fax for Asterisk, volume is not really an issue, since I only have four licenses on a brand new CentOS box (HP DL360 G6(or whatever is currently shipping from HP). <br>
<br>Based on caller ID, it is not one caller inflating the numbers. Generally, a failed fax will succeed on a subsequent try.<br><br>Previously, we were terminating faxes to a quad port Digium PRI card, everything from the OS to the hardware were from 2006. Although, I do not have exact numbers, they were much better from this "Unsupported" Digium setup over this "Supported" and sold for profit solution.<br>
<br>Maybe there is a simple setting somewhere, but "RTFM" from Digium tech support when the FM offers no suggestion on how to possibly tweak settings for better success. <br><br>Thanks,<br>Steve Totarao <br></div>
</div>