On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Jay R. Ashworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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) >
Well in the real world, your hypothesis has been proven wrong. Thanks, Steve Totaro _______________________________________________ -- 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
