On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 02:14:27PM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote: > There are much better solutions than doing a RAM drive. While it may > be stable (not in my experience, I advise using different servers for > different tasks (with redundancy obviously). A phone switch should be > just that, a recording server should also be just that (in demanding > environments).
That would be fine, if Asterisk was capable of buffering recording writes, but I'm told it's not; the I/O involved in getting that recording data off the box in real time is probably worse than that of putting it onto disk -- disks are usually higher bandwidth channels than network adapters. For permanent storage, certainly, the recordings should be moved to another box, and that's how we do it here. Cheers, -- jr '44 byte chunks. Is someone an ATM fan?' a -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink [EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274 Those who cast the vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything. -- (Joseph Stalin) _______________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
