I was just going to show the same. they have tried them all and have great success with this. Even if you have to load balance.
Check is out http://nerdvittles.com/?p=643 On 2010-03-04, at 2:21 PM, Chuck Mariotti wrote: > PiaF seems to speak highly of success of ProxMox (though you need 64bit > server hardware). I doubt it will handle the volumes you need. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOKGnev6Zfw > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Reza - Asterisk Consultant [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: March-04-10 11:39 AM > To: John Lange > Cc: Asterisk Users Group > Subject: Re: [on-asterisk] VM ESXi on Asterisk Production Platforms. > > *Hello John:* > > This is great info! To update everyone here - after speaking with several > leaders in this field - we've decide to stay away from ESXi. > > Back to the drawing board. > > *Best, > Reza. > * > > On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 10:51 AM, John Lange <[email protected]> wrote: > >> This discussion really boils down to the difference between >> full-virtualization and para-virtualization. >> >> Do a google search for "full virtualization vs. paravirtualization". >> >> One of the things you will learn is that VMWare is full virtualization >> and Xen is para-virtualization. >> >> Para virtualization exposes parts of the underlying hardware allowing >> the guest OS direct access to some things, chief among them hardware >> clocks and timing which is absolutely critical to Asterisk. >> >> Asterisk running on a fully virtualized guest OS is unlikely to run >> properly because the clock bounces all over the place. Even just >> keeping the proper date and time is problematic on these systems which >> is why you are supposed to install "VMWare tools" which helps mitigate >> these issues. >> >> On the other hand, my understanding is that Asterisk on Xen runs great. >> I believe there is even a commercial product for hosted PBXes that is >> based on this though the name escapes me at the moment. >> >> And there Xen kernel modules for Digium cards meaning you install the >> Digium cards in the Xen box and then all the virtual machines can >> access them just as if they were installed on the local system. >> >> A couple more things to keep in mind: >> >> - there is a massive difference between virtualization installed on >> top of an existing OS (such as VirtualBox, Microsoft Virtualization >> and all the "free" VMWare products), and "bare metal" virtualization >> like ESX and Xen. Bare metal is the only way to go for serious >> virtualization. >> >> - There are now specially tuned installs of some OSes designed for >> virtualization. For example, SUSE has an option for "this is a >> virtualized system" which installs all the specially tuned kernel >> options which makes a major performance difference. >> >> - And, everything I've said above, while still true, is a bit outdated. >> VMWare has recently gotten into the para virtualization game and there >> has been _tons_ of work done on the linux kernel in the last couple >> years to improve the performance of full and para virtulized systems. >> >> -- >> John Lange >> http://www.johnlange.ca >> >> On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 00:49 -0500, Reza - Asterisk Consultant wrote: >>> *Hey guys!* >>> >>> Thanks for all your responses. We've played heavily with ESXi -- but >>> before getting an Asterisk server with ESXi, I'm not ready to take a >> blind >>> leap of faith here without bench marks. I don't mind swimming in a >>> cold water if I know there are others with me :). But then again if >>> there are other options besides ESXi catered for Asterisk, then I'd >>> liketo >> investigate >>> it. >>> >>> During peak hours - we can hit 70+ simultaneous calls on ONE server >> alone. >>> We've also been receiving lots of requests for Virtual Asterisk >>> Hosting needs (plain vanilla Asterisk & FreePBX type). So I need to >>> keep an open mind with Virtualization options for prospects & clients. >>> >>> *Robert: *If you are using software G729 transcoding - then forget >> ESXi. >>> If you are doing any form of transcoding, then forget ESXi. If you are >>> doing call recordings & some sort of transcoding, forget ESXi. If you >> are >>> running Asterisk on top of other VM's on the same ESX(i), that is >>> running Windows Servers, Application servers and ESX(i) - then forget it. >>> >>> IF you **must** use PRIs in a virtual environment, then use >>> foneBRIDGE ( >>> http://www.red-fone.com/) and make sure there is no transcoding >>> going >> on. >>> >>> >>> *Hey Dave: *Been a LONG while! As per XEN, I've never used it - but >> I've >>> also heavily used Virtual Box. Though I love Sun's Virtual Box compared >> to >>> VMWare Workstation - don't even think of deploying Asterisk on >>> VirtualBox >> on >>> a production platform. Trust me, as you always have :). >>> >>> *Cheers! >>> Reza.* >>> >>> -- >>> Toronto based VoIP / Asterisk Trainer, I.T. Consultant and Hosted >>> PBX Solutions Provider. >>> +1-647-476-2067. >>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/seminar >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Robert Brock <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>>> Odd, I had a lot of problems with ESXi. >>>> >>>> If I setup the asterisk server with just a firewall and asterisk >>>> server everything ran fine, Isolated nics for each app and network >>>> (internal, >> DMZ >>>> and external), worked fine, but as soon as you load more VM >>>> machines >> things >>>> started to go sideways. Call quality of recordings went weird, >>>> G729 connections started to act like there was a lot of jitter on the line. >>>> >>>> I tried loading a test server on our ESX cluster and it was much >>>> much >> worse >>>> (60+ VM's). >>>> >>>> Also with ESXi you can't add PRI/PSTN cards, everything must be >> external. >>>> >>>> I couldn't see much point in running a production asterisk server >>>> as >> and VM >>>> on ESX - Handy for testing but not for production. >>>> >>>> I have also tried using ESX as a media server for Video and once >>>> more >> than >>>> 6 Vm were running on the ESX cluster video would get choppy for >>>> 1080P streams, it's like the network resource pools are being >>>> shared, even >> when >>>> nics are isolated to the specific VM. >>>> >>>> Robert Brock >>>> Telecom Administrator, MKS Inc., www.mks.com Waterloo, ON, Canada >>>> Tel: 519-883-3243 or 800-265-2797 x3243 >>>> Fax: 519-884-8861 >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Dave Donovan [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:27 PM >>>> To: Asterisk Users Group >>>> Subject: Re: [on-asterisk] VM ESXi on Asterisk Production Platforms. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Reza - Asterisk Consultant >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Has anyone in here worked hands on with ESXi and Asterisk? Would >> like >>>> to >>>>> hear your input and benchmarks, along with recommendations of other >>>>> alternatives that you may have placed at your data centre running >>>> Asterisk. >>>>> >>>>> Do you prefer ESXi or other alternatives? If alternatives, then >> why? >>>> >>>> Reza, >>>> >>>> This is a timely post. We just deployed Asterisk (PBX in a Flash) on >>>> our ESX 3.5 platform at our Mississauga office. ESXi is just a >>>> skinnier version of ESX. >>>> >>>> It's a bit early to say much about long-term stability, but we've had >>>> no problems with Asterisk since deployment. Fingers-crossed. >>>> >>>> During testing, we found we had choppy/poor quality audio on >>>> playback() operations like autoattendant. It wasn't as bad with >>>> voicemail messages so we installed native sounds, hoping that avoiding >>>> GSM-ULAW transcoding would fix it. It was improved but not great. We >>>> applie a kernel patch to resolve timing issues that caused the choppy >>>> audio. Now it's smooth as silk. >>>> >>>> Info on that patch can be found here: http://pbxinaflash.com/vm/ >>>> >>>> We ran the code exactly as it appears near the bottom of the page. >>>> The only other thing we had to do was edit grub.conf to make the new >>>> kernel the default one. >>>> >>>> I imagine that you're looking at a hosted type of application so, >>>> unfortunately, I can't tell you much about scaling since we're running >>>> only one Asterisk instance and it's the only thing in the high >>>> priority resource pool. It doesn't have to contend with any >>>> resource-intensive guests on the same machine. >>>> >>>> We chose VMware a couple of years ago for several reasons not related >>>> to Asterisk. Since then I've heard good things about other platforms >>>> like VirtualBox and Xen but I have no first hand experience with them. >>>> >>>> Good luck with your project, >>>> >>>> Dave >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Toronto based VoIP / Asterisk Trainer, > I.T. Consultant and Hosted PBX Solutions Provider. > +1-647-476-2067. > http://www.linkedin.com/in/seminar > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
