Mike, Never heard of Unison... do you have a link to it?
Doug. > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Diehl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 9:41 AM > To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion > Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Voicemail with NFS > > > I don't know how big your voicemail system is, but have you > considered using > Unison to syncronize the vm accross all your servers? I'm > deploying multiple > servers with two vm servers, each sync'ed every 5? minutes. > If one fails, > the other one should be "good enough." > > Just a though, > Mike > > On Friday 16 June 2006 16:14, Brian Capouch wrote: > > Douglas Garstang wrote: > > >>Douglas Garstang wrote: > > >>>I hope someone isn't going to tell me that the voicemail > > >> > > >>directory going away is going to cause Asterisk to fall in a > > >>heap on the floor. > > >> > > >> Brian Capouch wrote: > > >>You never give up on dissing Asterisk, do you, Pococurante? > > > > > > This would be acceptable behaviour for you? > > > > An NFS-mounted volume isn't ever going to be as reliable as > one mounted > > on the local filesystem. You are introducing additional points of > > failure both with respect to there now being two hard > drives involved, > > as well as an interposed network that can fail in a variety of ways. > > > > So by definition this arrangement isn't going to be as > reliable as one > > based on a native filesystem. > > > > And you never have answered the direct question: what do > you expect the > > "logical" thing would be to happen if all the sudden an > important system > > resource has just gone away? > > > > Regardless of the answer (because a rejoinder to that would > then be, "So > > add that behavior into Asterisk, or help the developers do > so . . ") my > > point isn't that you are finding--actually looking for--places where > > catastrophic behavior makes Asterisk suffer. > > > > The problem is that you don't ever say, "So what are some reasonable > > things that might be done in this situation;" instead you emit a > > scathing remark ("fall in a heap on the floor") that would indicate > > you've discovered some glaring design flaw that any idiot would have > > known to design around ahead of your "finding" it. > > > > It is not automatically the case that if Asterisk doesn't > do something > > you think it should do it means that Asterisk is horribly > and glaringly > > flawed. But that's what you *always* assume, and you > always--ALWAYS--do > > so snidely. > > > > Pococurante. > > > > B. > _______________________________________________ > --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 > _______________________________________________ --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
