It would if the user was *busy* not if they don't answer. Mark
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, Brian West wrote: > It just rings the fewestcalls or leastrecent over and over.. it doesn't > hunt one bit right now. Thats why I posted to the list so Mark could get > an idea of what people would like to see before he fixes fewestcalls and > leastrecent logic. > > bkw > > On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, Jim Friedeck wrote: > > > In our original spec for Digium, leastrecent was specifically 'agent who > > answered a call longest ago for that queue'. (not a direct quote) It > > would then go to the next agent in order of 'longest go'. Has this > > changed? Does it immediatly go roundrobin by agent number or agent load > > order? Thanks. > > > > Jim Friedeck > > > > ------------------------------------------ > > > > Brian West wrote: > > > > >Ok just had my boss point something out: > > > > > >"I'd think dumping calls on most-idle would be fairly straightforward, but > > >could be skewed if agentA is on a 40 minute call, agentB has a bunch of 5 > > >minute calls" > > > > > >So total call time should be counted in the logic somewhere. > > > > > >bkw > > > > > >On Sun, 10 Aug 2003, Brian West wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >>I think we are starting to see what type of logic people are wanting in > > >>fewestcalls and leastrecent strategy. > > >> > > >>bkw > > >> > > >>On Sun, 10 Aug 2003, Richard Lyman wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>>i disagree, instead of thinking 'fallback' how about 'order' the agents > > >>>(by effecting the 'metric') so you 'target' the agent you want first > > >>>then if fail they go right to the next one in the 'ordered' list. > > >>> > > >>>Brian West wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>>leastrecent suffers the same fait as fewestcalls onlying ringing the > > >>>>leastrecent agent over and over endlessly. It should have a fallback > > >>>>option. > > >>>> > > >>>>roundrobin with leastrecent first > > >>>>roundrobin with fewestcalls first > > >>>> > > >>>>I would like to see a roundrobin with leastbusy first option. > > >>>>(just because you have taken less call or leastrecent doesn't mean you > > >>>>haven't been a busy agent!) > > >>>> > > >>>>I'm sure better autologoff logic as per my first email would be a great > > >>>>idea also. > > >>>> > > >>>>bkw > > >>>> > > >>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2003, Richard Lyman wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>>well if you ask me, the leastrecent part would work if you reversed the > > >>>>>logic on the metric. > > >>>>> > > >>>>>my other last_used mod would do a time_t on that agent the last time it > > >>>>>was 'tried' (ast_request'd) then (i was using arrays) qsort so that (new > > >>>>>agents) '0' would be on top, and the agent that got the most recent > > >>>>>attempt would be on the bottom '1057174447' (below is an example) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> -- sorted agent array: 317 last_used: 0 > > >>>>> -- sorted agent array: 318 last_used: 0 > > >>>>> -- sorted agent array: 319 last_used: 0 > > >>>>> -- sorted agent array: 300 last_used: 1057174447 > > >>>>> > > >>>>>that way, (for leastrecent anyway), you are always working with a full stack > > >>>>>of agents. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>Brian West wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>>First of all I would like to thank Mark for getting roundrobin to go > > >>>>>>roundrobin. Good job. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>Now we have some options here for leastrecent and fewestcalls strategy. It > > >>>>>>needs some work on the logic and Mark recommend that I ask the list and > > >>>>>>get some input before he makes any changes to it. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>fewestcalls from what I have seen would always ring the agent with the > > >>>>>>fewestcalls first then go into roundrobin if that agent didn't answer. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>Next new caller would ring fewestcalls agent first then start roundrobin. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>What do you think should happen in fewestcalls? Right now it just rings > > >>>>>>the agent with the fewestcalls over and over with current app_queue logic. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>leastrecent from what I have been looking at will ring the agent that has > > >>>>>>least recently take a call first then if they don't answer go into > > >>>>>>roundrobin. Then the next new call coming from queue would first go to > > >>>>>>the leastrecent first then try every agent in roundrobin till answered > > >>>>>>then starting over again. New caller from queue hits leastrecent agent > > >>>>>>first. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>Same thing happens in leastrecent strategy. The leastrecent agent will > > >>>>>>ring over and over with current app_queue logic. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>Now some of you might recommend autologoff options. But that also might > > >>>>>>need some work. I don't want to log off an agent for not answering the > > >>>>>>phone only once. So here is how I would like to see autologoff work. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>Example: > > >>>>>>queue timeout = 20 > > >>>>>>agent autologoff = 60 > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>The agent would have to not answer their phone 3 times in a row to get > > >>>>>>logged off. As it stands now they did not answer just once and get logged > > >>>>>>off. Thus allow for an employee to use the excuse for not working when > > >>>>>>they should be logged in and taking calls. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>Unless i'm wrong here. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>Please post your input on these options and how you would like them to see > > >>>>>>them function function. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>Thanks, > > >>>>>>Brian > > >>>>>>CWIS Internet Services > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>_______________________________________________ > > >>>>>>Asterisk-Users mailing list > > >>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>>>>>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>_______________________________________________ > > >>>>>Asterisk-Users mailing list > > >>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>>>>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>_______________________________________________ > > >>>>Asterisk-Users mailing list > > >>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>>>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>_______________________________________________ > > >>>Asterisk-Users mailing list > > >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>_______________________________________________ > > >>Asterisk-Users mailing list > > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >_______________________________________________ > > >Asterisk-Users mailing list > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Asterisk-Users mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > > > _______________________________________________ > Asterisk-Users mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
