|
You only use 1 process.. its a pipe so you dont
burn cpu for every single call.
bkw
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users]
mpg123
Brain,
I believe that space on the disk become very
cheap, as well as computer memory, so it does not make any sense to have
decoding mpegs in the memory, consuming cpu cycles for this.... let save a
little for codecs and echo cancellation :-)
Anyway - thanks for good
points - I will upgrade mpg123 on my systems, as well as use "quitetmp3nb".
Does it enough to serve 20-30 calls at once?
Thanks
brian
wrote:
Is anyone will propose anything better then crappy mpg123 musiconhold? I
think playing wav files is better approach then playing CPU consuming
mpegs.
If you stop and realize that mpg123 will not decode when the stream isn't
being used. So you are only burning CPU when someone is listening to the
stream. In addition if you use mpg123 0.59r you will never have one ounce
of problems with it. Download and compile that version from src (and yes
the version on the website is patched but you aren't using http to stream)
Also if you use "quietmp3nb" you will see only *one* mpg123 per music on
hold class.
I don't see one thing that's crappy about the current music on hold setup.
bkw
_______________________________________________
Asterisk-Users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
|
