Re: [asterisk-users] RAMDisk vs Extarnal server for recording
@Matt: will check that one out, thanks @David: will do a search in the archives to see if I can find something there :) thanks! as soon as my setup is done and working correctly, I'll post the results back here. On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 21:19, Matt Florell wrote: > On 10/21/09, David Backeberg wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 7:36 AM, Robin wrote: > > > Thanks for your response. > > > The hardware I have now is not sufficient to set up a ramdisk (just 4 > gb)... > > > But memory is rather cheap nowadays. If i'd buf up the server with 8 > extra > > > gigs for use as a ramdrive, do you think that might be enough to > record > > > between 30-60 simultanious streams? Or should it be way more? > > > > > > I'm doing ramdisk recordings of about the same number of streams > > you're talking, in 4GB. > > I move out completed recordings once every 15 minutes or so via NFS, > > and as such, I never use very much of the ramdisk. There's no rule > > that says you have to use the whole 4GB of ram for recordings. I'm > > probably staying below 100MB or so. Strictly speaking, I'm using both > > ramdisk and external server, but the external server is just a > > centralized system with larger disks. > > > > However, I know that this arrangement isn't working for my load which > > is about to double again, so I'm upgrading to better hardware (and > > maintaining the status quo with my asterisk arrangement) > > > > If you read every single title of asterisk-users in the last few > > months, you'll find a similar discussion on this topic which went > > through the pros and cons of ramdisk versus centralized server. > > > > Somebody at that time mentioned particular names of programs that can > > do the centralized recordings by doing network hardware level > > replication and picking off the SIP packets. I've never done this, but > > if you find that mailing list thread you'll be able to find names of > > people who say they've done that. > > We have a few clients that use Oreka(from OrecX) that does > network-based SIP packet-capture recording. It works very well on > their multi-server setups and the core of Oreka is Open Source. > > MATT--- > > ___ > -- 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 > ___ -- 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
Re: [asterisk-users] RAMDisk vs Extarnal server for recording
On 10/21/09, David Backeberg wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 7:36 AM, Robin wrote: > > Thanks for your response. > > The hardware I have now is not sufficient to set up a ramdisk (just 4 > gb)... > > But memory is rather cheap nowadays. If i'd buf up the server with 8 extra > > gigs for use as a ramdrive, do you think that might be enough to record > > between 30-60 simultanious streams? Or should it be way more? > > > I'm doing ramdisk recordings of about the same number of streams > you're talking, in 4GB. > I move out completed recordings once every 15 minutes or so via NFS, > and as such, I never use very much of the ramdisk. There's no rule > that says you have to use the whole 4GB of ram for recordings. I'm > probably staying below 100MB or so. Strictly speaking, I'm using both > ramdisk and external server, but the external server is just a > centralized system with larger disks. > > However, I know that this arrangement isn't working for my load which > is about to double again, so I'm upgrading to better hardware (and > maintaining the status quo with my asterisk arrangement) > > If you read every single title of asterisk-users in the last few > months, you'll find a similar discussion on this topic which went > through the pros and cons of ramdisk versus centralized server. > > Somebody at that time mentioned particular names of programs that can > do the centralized recordings by doing network hardware level > replication and picking off the SIP packets. I've never done this, but > if you find that mailing list thread you'll be able to find names of > people who say they've done that. We have a few clients that use Oreka(from OrecX) that does network-based SIP packet-capture recording. It works very well on their multi-server setups and the core of Oreka is Open Source. MATT--- ___ -- 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
Re: [asterisk-users] RAMDisk vs Extarnal server for recording
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 7:36 AM, Robin wrote: > Thanks for your response. > The hardware I have now is not sufficient to set up a ramdisk (just 4 gb)... > But memory is rather cheap nowadays. If i'd buf up the server with 8 extra > gigs for use as a ramdrive, do you think that might be enough to record > between 30-60 simultanious streams? Or should it be way more? I'm doing ramdisk recordings of about the same number of streams you're talking, in 4GB. I move out completed recordings once every 15 minutes or so via NFS, and as such, I never use very much of the ramdisk. There's no rule that says you have to use the whole 4GB of ram for recordings. I'm probably staying below 100MB or so. Strictly speaking, I'm using both ramdisk and external server, but the external server is just a centralized system with larger disks. However, I know that this arrangement isn't working for my load which is about to double again, so I'm upgrading to better hardware (and maintaining the status quo with my asterisk arrangement) If you read every single title of asterisk-users in the last few months, you'll find a similar discussion on this topic which went through the pros and cons of ramdisk versus centralized server. Somebody at that time mentioned particular names of programs that can do the centralized recordings by doing network hardware level replication and picking off the SIP packets. I've never done this, but if you find that mailing list thread you'll be able to find names of people who say they've done that. ___ -- 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
Re: [asterisk-users] RAMDisk vs Extarnal server for recording
I'm on it, going to get me some new hardware tomorrow and hope to have it up and running early next week. tnx! On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 17:42, Matt Florell wrote: > Hello, > > Yep, I'm the ViciDial Guy :) > > In our most recent release we do have some instructions in the > SCRATCH_INSTALL.txt doc on setting up a tmpfs partition for recording. > > 8GB should be fine for the 60 concurrent recordings under the times > you gave, although with MySQL and Apache/PHP you may run into issues, > so I would recommend moving MySQL/Apache/PHP off to a different server > ASAP. > > Thanks for the compliments! > > MATT--- > > > > > On 10/21/09, Robin wrote: > > Hi Matt, > > > > ain't you the vicidial guy? I'm actually trying to get this stuff fixed > on a > > vicidial system. > > > > Anyway, the minimum length is 10-20 seconds, maximum can get as long as > > 15-20 minutes, and on average it's about 2-5 minutes, depending on the > > campaign. > > > > The server is now doing everything btw, but I'm going to dedicate it to > only > > handle calling and recording. The rest (database and http) will be moved > to > > other servers, which might help a bit too. > > > > Off topic: the company I work for went bankrupt a few months ago, but is > > back in business and we are making heavy use of vicidial (awesome stuff). > > Going to do loads of work on it, so hope to give loads of (usefull) code > to > > the vicidial project by the end of the year. Looking forward to it! > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 17:11, Matt Florell wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > We use RAM to record to on almost all systems we set up, although we > > > usually use tmpfs, instead of a fixed RAM drive, because it is more > > > flexible. > > > > > > The number of recordings you can handle is dependant on how long the > > > calls are. What would your average, minimum, maximum recording lengths > > > be? > > > > > > We usually do not do more than 100 concurrent recordings on a single > > > server, but we have done up to 250 before successfully. > > > > > > MATT--- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/21/09, Robin wrote: > > > > Thanks for your response. > > > > The hardware I have now is not sufficient to set up a ramdisk (just 4 > > gb)... > > > > But memory is rather cheap nowadays. If i'd buf up the server with 8 > > extra > > > > gigs for use as a ramdrive, do you think that might be enough to > record > > > > between 30-60 simultanious streams? Or should it be way more? > > > > > > > > btw, I found this thread somewhere: > > > > > > > http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/2005-October/120930.html, > > > > but this is rather old info. Is this documentation still usefull? And > if > > > > not, do you happen to have any idea/url/doc where I can find a bit > less > > old > > > > info? > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > > robin > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 13:21, Zoa wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are 2 issues i think, one is the seek time on harddisks and > the > > > > > lack of a big buffer in Asterisk (saving 10 streams at the same > time > > > > > will cause a lt of random writes). > > > > > The other one is the interrupts being taken up by the harddisk. > > > > > > > > > > So an SSD might help, saving to an network drive might help (it > moves > > > > > the issue to another server, where it might not cause a problem), > > > > > buffering to ram (but you will lack space). > > > > > The best solution depends on your exact hardware and the amount of > > > > > writes you want to do. > > > > > > > > > > Buffering to a ramdrive before moving it over NFS seems like the > best > > > > > idea to me. > > > > > > > > > > Zoa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Robin wrote: > > > > > > I'm having loads of problems with recordings, as in crappy audio > > > > > > quality and lost pieces of the recordings. I've been searching > for a > > > > > > solution and the solutions i find on the interwebs include a > > ramdisk, > > > > > > for local recording, or another machine, handling the recording. > I > > > > > > guess the ramdisk would be the "easy" solution and the external > > > > > > machine would be little harder to set up. I do actually prefer > the > > > > > > external machine, but i'm not exaclty sure how to set that one > up... > > > > > > The reason I prefer the external machine, is that the recording > have > > > > > > to be moved to an external machine anyway. Although I've come > across > > a > > > > > > post somewhere, talking about recording to ramdisk and then move > the > > > > > > files over a crosscable directly to another disk over 1000mbit. > > Which > > > > > > sound nice as well... > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you advise for bringing serverload down and get rid of > the > > > > > > harddisk bottleneck? Is a ramdisk a better solution then an > external > > > > > > machine? And if so, why? > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry about this pro-con question, but I cannot find an an
Re: [asterisk-users] RAMDisk vs Extarnal server for recording
Hello, Yep, I'm the ViciDial Guy :) In our most recent release we do have some instructions in the SCRATCH_INSTALL.txt doc on setting up a tmpfs partition for recording. 8GB should be fine for the 60 concurrent recordings under the times you gave, although with MySQL and Apache/PHP you may run into issues, so I would recommend moving MySQL/Apache/PHP off to a different server ASAP. Thanks for the compliments! MATT--- On 10/21/09, Robin wrote: > Hi Matt, > > ain't you the vicidial guy? I'm actually trying to get this stuff fixed on a > vicidial system. > > Anyway, the minimum length is 10-20 seconds, maximum can get as long as > 15-20 minutes, and on average it's about 2-5 minutes, depending on the > campaign. > > The server is now doing everything btw, but I'm going to dedicate it to only > handle calling and recording. The rest (database and http) will be moved to > other servers, which might help a bit too. > > Off topic: the company I work for went bankrupt a few months ago, but is > back in business and we are making heavy use of vicidial (awesome stuff). > Going to do loads of work on it, so hope to give loads of (usefull) code to > the vicidial project by the end of the year. Looking forward to it! > > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 17:11, Matt Florell wrote: > > Hello, > > > > We use RAM to record to on almost all systems we set up, although we > > usually use tmpfs, instead of a fixed RAM drive, because it is more > > flexible. > > > > The number of recordings you can handle is dependant on how long the > > calls are. What would your average, minimum, maximum recording lengths > > be? > > > > We usually do not do more than 100 concurrent recordings on a single > > server, but we have done up to 250 before successfully. > > > > MATT--- > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/21/09, Robin wrote: > > > Thanks for your response. > > > The hardware I have now is not sufficient to set up a ramdisk (just 4 > gb)... > > > But memory is rather cheap nowadays. If i'd buf up the server with 8 > extra > > > gigs for use as a ramdrive, do you think that might be enough to record > > > between 30-60 simultanious streams? Or should it be way more? > > > > > > btw, I found this thread somewhere: > > > > http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/2005-October/120930.html, > > > but this is rather old info. Is this documentation still usefull? And if > > > not, do you happen to have any idea/url/doc where I can find a bit less > old > > > info? > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > robin > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 13:21, Zoa wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > There are 2 issues i think, one is the seek time on harddisks and the > > > > lack of a big buffer in Asterisk (saving 10 streams at the same time > > > > will cause a lt of random writes). > > > > The other one is the interrupts being taken up by the harddisk. > > > > > > > > So an SSD might help, saving to an network drive might help (it moves > > > > the issue to another server, where it might not cause a problem), > > > > buffering to ram (but you will lack space). > > > > The best solution depends on your exact hardware and the amount of > > > > writes you want to do. > > > > > > > > Buffering to a ramdrive before moving it over NFS seems like the best > > > > idea to me. > > > > > > > > Zoa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Robin wrote: > > > > > I'm having loads of problems with recordings, as in crappy audio > > > > > quality and lost pieces of the recordings. I've been searching for a > > > > > solution and the solutions i find on the interwebs include a > ramdisk, > > > > > for local recording, or another machine, handling the recording. I > > > > > guess the ramdisk would be the "easy" solution and the external > > > > > machine would be little harder to set up. I do actually prefer the > > > > > external machine, but i'm not exaclty sure how to set that one up... > > > > > The reason I prefer the external machine, is that the recording have > > > > > to be moved to an external machine anyway. Although I've come across > a > > > > > post somewhere, talking about recording to ramdisk and then move the > > > > > files over a crosscable directly to another disk over 1000mbit. > Which > > > > > sound nice as well... > > > > > > > > > > What do you advise for bringing serverload down and get rid of the > > > > > harddisk bottleneck? Is a ramdisk a better solution then an external > > > > > machine? And if so, why? > > > > > > > > > > Sorry about this pro-con question, but I cannot find an answer which > > > > > compares these pro-cons anywhere. > > > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > > > > robin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > > > > -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com > -- > > > > > > > > > > asterisk-users mailing list > > > > > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: >
Re: [asterisk-users] RAMDisk vs Extarnal server for recording
Hi Matt, ain't you the vicidial guy? I'm actually trying to get this stuff fixed on a vicidial system. Anyway, the minimum length is 10-20 seconds, maximum can get as long as 15-20 minutes, and on average it's about 2-5 minutes, depending on the campaign. The server is now doing everything btw, but I'm going to dedicate it to only handle calling and recording. The rest (database and http) will be moved to other servers, which might help a bit too. *Off topic*: the company I work for went bankrupt a few months ago, but is back in business and we are making heavy use of vicidial (awesome stuff). Going to do loads of work on it, so hope to give loads of (usefull) code to the vicidial project by the end of the year. Looking forward to it! On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 17:11, Matt Florell wrote: > Hello, > > We use RAM to record to on almost all systems we set up, although we > usually use tmpfs, instead of a fixed RAM drive, because it is more > flexible. > > The number of recordings you can handle is dependant on how long the > calls are. What would your average, minimum, maximum recording lengths > be? > > We usually do not do more than 100 concurrent recordings on a single > server, but we have done up to 250 before successfully. > > MATT--- > > > On 10/21/09, Robin wrote: > > Thanks for your response. > > The hardware I have now is not sufficient to set up a ramdisk (just 4 > gb)... > > But memory is rather cheap nowadays. If i'd buf up the server with 8 > extra > > gigs for use as a ramdrive, do you think that might be enough to record > > between 30-60 simultanious streams? Or should it be way more? > > > > btw, I found this thread somewhere: > > > http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/2005-October/120930.html, > > but this is rather old info. Is this documentation still usefull? And if > > not, do you happen to have any idea/url/doc where I can find a bit less > old > > info? > > > > thanks, > > > > robin > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 13:21, Zoa wrote: > > > > > > > > > There are 2 issues i think, one is the seek time on harddisks and the > > > lack of a big buffer in Asterisk (saving 10 streams at the same time > > > will cause a lt of random writes). > > > The other one is the interrupts being taken up by the harddisk. > > > > > > So an SSD might help, saving to an network drive might help (it moves > > > the issue to another server, where it might not cause a problem), > > > buffering to ram (but you will lack space). > > > The best solution depends on your exact hardware and the amount of > > > writes you want to do. > > > > > > Buffering to a ramdrive before moving it over NFS seems like the best > > > idea to me. > > > > > > Zoa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Robin wrote: > > > > I'm having loads of problems with recordings, as in crappy audio > > > > quality and lost pieces of the recordings. I've been searching for a > > > > solution and the solutions i find on the interwebs include a ramdisk, > > > > for local recording, or another machine, handling the recording. I > > > > guess the ramdisk would be the "easy" solution and the external > > > > machine would be little harder to set up. I do actually prefer the > > > > external machine, but i'm not exaclty sure how to set that one up... > > > > The reason I prefer the external machine, is that the recording have > > > > to be moved to an external machine anyway. Although I've come across > a > > > > post somewhere, talking about recording to ramdisk and then move the > > > > files over a crosscable directly to another disk over 1000mbit. Which > > > > sound nice as well... > > > > > > > > What do you advise for bringing serverload down and get rid of the > > > > harddisk bottleneck? Is a ramdisk a better solution then an external > > > > machine? And if so, why? > > > > > > > > Sorry about this pro-con question, but I cannot find an answer which > > > > compares these pro-cons anywhere. > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > > robin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > > > -- 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 > > > > > > > > > ___ > > > -- 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 > > > > > > > > > ___ > > -- 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 > > > > __
Re: [asterisk-users] RAMDisk vs Extarnal server for recording
Hello, We use RAM to record to on almost all systems we set up, although we usually use tmpfs, instead of a fixed RAM drive, because it is more flexible. The number of recordings you can handle is dependant on how long the calls are. What would your average, minimum, maximum recording lengths be? We usually do not do more than 100 concurrent recordings on a single server, but we have done up to 250 before successfully. MATT--- On 10/21/09, Robin wrote: > Thanks for your response. > The hardware I have now is not sufficient to set up a ramdisk (just 4 gb)... > But memory is rather cheap nowadays. If i'd buf up the server with 8 extra > gigs for use as a ramdrive, do you think that might be enough to record > between 30-60 simultanious streams? Or should it be way more? > > btw, I found this thread somewhere: > http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/2005-October/120930.html, > but this is rather old info. Is this documentation still usefull? And if > not, do you happen to have any idea/url/doc where I can find a bit less old > info? > > thanks, > > robin > > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 13:21, Zoa wrote: > > > > > > There are 2 issues i think, one is the seek time on harddisks and the > > lack of a big buffer in Asterisk (saving 10 streams at the same time > > will cause a lt of random writes). > > The other one is the interrupts being taken up by the harddisk. > > > > So an SSD might help, saving to an network drive might help (it moves > > the issue to another server, where it might not cause a problem), > > buffering to ram (but you will lack space). > > The best solution depends on your exact hardware and the amount of > > writes you want to do. > > > > Buffering to a ramdrive before moving it over NFS seems like the best > > idea to me. > > > > Zoa > > > > > > > > > > Robin wrote: > > > I'm having loads of problems with recordings, as in crappy audio > > > quality and lost pieces of the recordings. I've been searching for a > > > solution and the solutions i find on the interwebs include a ramdisk, > > > for local recording, or another machine, handling the recording. I > > > guess the ramdisk would be the "easy" solution and the external > > > machine would be little harder to set up. I do actually prefer the > > > external machine, but i'm not exaclty sure how to set that one up... > > > The reason I prefer the external machine, is that the recording have > > > to be moved to an external machine anyway. Although I've come across a > > > post somewhere, talking about recording to ramdisk and then move the > > > files over a crosscable directly to another disk over 1000mbit. Which > > > sound nice as well... > > > > > > What do you advise for bringing serverload down and get rid of the > > > harddisk bottleneck? Is a ramdisk a better solution then an external > > > machine? And if so, why? > > > > > > Sorry about this pro-con question, but I cannot find an answer which > > > compares these pro-cons anywhere. > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > robin > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > > -- 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 > > > > > > ___ > > -- 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 > > > > > ___ > -- 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 > ___ -- 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
Re: [asterisk-users] RAMDisk vs Extarnal server for recording
Thanks for your response. The hardware I have now is not sufficient to set up a ramdisk (just 4 gb)... But memory is rather cheap nowadays. If i'd buf up the server with 8 extra gigs for use as a ramdrive, do you think that might be enough to record between 30-60 simultanious streams? Or should it be way more? btw, I found this thread somewhere: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/2005-October/120930.html, but this is rather old info. Is this documentation still usefull? And if not, do you happen to have any idea/url/doc where I can find a bit less old info? thanks, robin On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 13:21, Zoa wrote: > > > There are 2 issues i think, one is the seek time on harddisks and the > lack of a big buffer in Asterisk (saving 10 streams at the same time > will cause a lt of random writes). > The other one is the interrupts being taken up by the harddisk. > > So an SSD might help, saving to an network drive might help (it moves > the issue to another server, where it might not cause a problem), > buffering to ram (but you will lack space). > The best solution depends on your exact hardware and the amount of > writes you want to do. > > Buffering to a ramdrive before moving it over NFS seems like the best > idea to me. > > Zoa > > Robin wrote: > > I'm having loads of problems with recordings, as in crappy audio > > quality and lost pieces of the recordings. I've been searching for a > > solution and the solutions i find on the interwebs include a ramdisk, > > for local recording, or another machine, handling the recording. I > > guess the ramdisk would be the "easy" solution and the external > > machine would be little harder to set up. I do actually prefer the > > external machine, but i'm not exaclty sure how to set that one up... > > The reason I prefer the external machine, is that the recording have > > to be moved to an external machine anyway. Although I've come across a > > post somewhere, talking about recording to ramdisk and then move the > > files over a crosscable directly to another disk over 1000mbit. Which > > sound nice as well... > > > > What do you advise for bringing serverload down and get rid of the > > harddisk bottleneck? Is a ramdisk a better solution then an external > > machine? And if so, why? > > > > Sorry about this pro-con question, but I cannot find an answer which > > compares these pro-cons anywhere. > > > > thanks, > > > > robin > > > > > > ___ > > -- 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 > > > ___ > -- 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 > ___ -- 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
Re: [asterisk-users] RAMDisk vs Extarnal server for recording
There are 2 issues i think, one is the seek time on harddisks and the lack of a big buffer in Asterisk (saving 10 streams at the same time will cause a lt of random writes). The other one is the interrupts being taken up by the harddisk. So an SSD might help, saving to an network drive might help (it moves the issue to another server, where it might not cause a problem), buffering to ram (but you will lack space). The best solution depends on your exact hardware and the amount of writes you want to do. Buffering to a ramdrive before moving it over NFS seems like the best idea to me. Zoa Robin wrote: > I'm having loads of problems with recordings, as in crappy audio > quality and lost pieces of the recordings. I've been searching for a > solution and the solutions i find on the interwebs include a ramdisk, > for local recording, or another machine, handling the recording. I > guess the ramdisk would be the "easy" solution and the external > machine would be little harder to set up. I do actually prefer the > external machine, but i'm not exaclty sure how to set that one up... > The reason I prefer the external machine, is that the recording have > to be moved to an external machine anyway. Although I've come across a > post somewhere, talking about recording to ramdisk and then move the > files over a crosscable directly to another disk over 1000mbit. Which > sound nice as well... > > What do you advise for bringing serverload down and get rid of the > harddisk bottleneck? Is a ramdisk a better solution then an external > machine? And if so, why? > > Sorry about this pro-con question, but I cannot find an answer which > compares these pro-cons anywhere. > > thanks, > > robin > > > ___ > -- 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 ___ -- 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
[asterisk-users] RAMDisk vs Extarnal server for recording
I'm having loads of problems with recordings, as in crappy audio quality and lost pieces of the recordings. I've been searching for a solution and the solutions i find on the interwebs include a ramdisk, for local recording, or another machine, handling the recording. I guess the ramdisk would be the "easy" solution and the external machine would be little harder to set up. I do actually prefer the external machine, but i'm not exaclty sure how to set that one up... The reason I prefer the external machine, is that the recording have to be moved to an external machine anyway. Although I've come across a post somewhere, talking about recording to ramdisk and then move the files over a crosscable directly to another disk over 1000mbit. Which sound nice as well... What do you advise for bringing serverload down and get rid of the harddisk bottleneck? Is a ramdisk a better solution then an external machine? And if so, why? Sorry about this pro-con question, but I cannot find an answer which compares these pro-cons anywhere. thanks, robin ___ -- 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
