Thanks, Matt ! So, am I correct in assuming that there are quite a few (or alot) of us who have had not so good experiences with Asterisk? That Asterisk would crash after it hit a certain number of calls or after a certain period of time with 15-20 calls? I understand that there were others who were able to send a good number of calls through but can anyone tell us if they have had tested and confirmed that Asterisk runs better without or with HT and in terms of number of calls, how many would each one support, in the ballpark? It would also be nice if one could tell us the computer configuration in order to send that many calls without crashing Asterisk. Does it make a difference running the LAN on a ONBOARD LAN card as compared to a PCI Intel or 3COM LAN card, since there is a chance that packets are passing more efficiently on a PCI LAN card?
Side question: Is it possible to do passthrough faxing? Like, customers sending me H323 or SIP fax calls and the Asterisk will pass through to another gateway? Anyone successful in doing that? Tommy -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of mattf Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 8:32 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Latest version of asterisk Hello, I've had Asterisk installed on HT capable machines in both HT mode(with SMP) and non HT mode (with non-SMP) and did not notice any differences functionally between them. The processor load was always less in HT SMP mode than non HT and I have experienced Asterisk deadlocks in both modes so it doesn't really seem to matter if you leave HT on(at least in my experiences). HT basically works by splitting off commands to one of two different virtual processors that both run at about 70% of processor's speed(that's why you may notice compiling to take longer when in HT mode) I have heard of some applications having memory addressing errors with HT but I have not seen any evidence to support that in Asterisk thus far. I'm going to try installing a 4 x T1 card on my Athlon 2xMP server next week and see if Asterisk/Digium performance/compatibility improves over the Intel platform. MATT--- -----Original Message----- From: WipeOut [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 2:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] RE: Latest version of asterisk T. Chan wrote: >Dear All > >Should one enable HT in the chip when running Asterisk or if we don't, would >that offer alot less processing power? > >T > I have read before that HT did not help Asterisk so should be dissabled, but as the chipsets and other hardware get better at using and controlling HT it may help.. Run some tests on your system and see what your conclusions are, then feedback your findings to the list so that others may learn from it.. Later.. _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.563 / Virus Database: 355 - Release Date: 1/17/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.563 / Virus Database: 355 - Release Date: 1/17/2004 _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
