Simon
On 6/17/06, Douglas Garstang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mike,
I don't think unison is a workable solution. It doesn't scale. The network and system load would increase exponentially as we added asterisk servers to our cluster.
Doug.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Diehl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Fri 6/16/2006 9:40 AM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Cc:
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
_______________________________________________ --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
