Rich Adamson wrote:
Yep, there is a lot of chatter about how hardware "x" performs with
Asterisk and while I/O is the primary mover, most designs today will
handle the modest Asterisk install easily. I've got a site where
they use 6 lines and 15 users on a 500Mhz CPU w/512MB RAM and boot
off a 2GB flash disk.
VERY modest and absolutely dominates that particular install.
Only in the larger installs will hardware be an issue, but even then
it doesn't take much hardware (from a server perspective) to handle a
LOT of Asterisk traffic.
RandyW
The worst problem will be older hardware that doesn't play well with
Digium cards. The TDM400 is the one I have some experience with, and
even motherboards that are PCI 2.2 don't always see the TDM400
The Sangoma A200 seems more forgiving.
I have to wonder if the T1/E1 cards suffer in a similar manner?
While talking with one of the sangoma folks very recently, he was rather
emphatic the pci bus was designed to "share" interrupts. I was a little
concerned as a test server had the wanpipe driver sharing an interrupt
with libata and uhc1_hcd. His comment was "that's the way its suppose to
work, sharing interrupts as needed". I've not had any recognizable
issues with the A200D card at all, and faxing via a A200D fxs port to a
A200D fxo (pstn) port functions 100% reliably.
What that would suggest is the TDM400 pci firmware (whether on card
logic or whatever) is the source of at least part of the TDM400 shared
interrupt issue. I don't have any digium T1/E1 cards laying around, but
if memory serves correctly, the T1/E1 cards do not use the same pci
controller chip. That would suggest the T1/E1 cards are less of an issue
then with the TDM400 card.
The single port T1/E1 card (te110p) and the TDM400 both use the TigerJet
320.
--
Kristian Kielhofner
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --
Asterisk-Users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
