Steven Critchfield wrote: > On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 13:26, David Gomillion wrote: >> Rob Fugina wrote: >> [snip] >>>> Is there a way to safely compile while * is running, so that I can >>>> minimize down time of the server? >>> >>> Seg faulting compiles usually indicate a memory problem on the >>> machine. Not lack of size, but bad memory, badly seated memory, >>> etc... There's no reason asterisk running, or the drivers being >>> loaded, should >>> cause a compile to seg fault. >>> >> I don't agree. When first learning to program, my programs >> segfaulted all of the time, regarless of what machine I was on. >> Often, it was doing something stupid, like trying to replace a file >> that was in use, etc. > > You apparently still have quite a bit more to learn.
Agreed. That's why I'm here. And yes, in my first year of Computer Science, I wrote crap that could even crash gcc. But that's another story, for another time. >> be up for 13.9 days (check my math... it's been a while). [snip] > You should really look into bc -l before you speak. 30 seconds over > 3.47 days is 99.989 percent uptime. For true 5 9's, you could only > spare > 2.998 seconds in 3.47 days. Again, you're right. I missed a 0, which I know is a BIG deal. I'm glad I have you to keep me honest :). And the difference between 2.998 and 3 is because the answer was really 3.47222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222 222222222222222222222222222222222222222222... but I figured 3.47 was close enough. Anyway, thanks for bringing my bad math to my attention. So, here's the question: has anyone worked on a phone system that DID have 5 9's? I'm not talking about core services that AT&T Long Lines owns, I mean customer-premises equipment. Is that an unrealistic goal? _______________________________________________ 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
