RE: [Asterisk-Users] Is this server sufficient?
As an asterisk server it is more than fine but asterisk prefers to be a standalone machine. You would have a lot less issues if you had 2 machines, one handling file serving, SMTP and one dedicate machine for asterisk. Voice isn't very tolerant of interrupts. Cheers, Dean -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:asterisk-users- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Francesco Peeters Sent: Wednesday, 22 June 2005 7:28 AM To: asterisk-users@lists.digium.com Subject: [Asterisk-Users] Is this server sufficient? I've tried to find some details on the wiki, but was unable to get a satisfactory result, so I am asking here: I have a Linux (FC3) box with these specs: vendor_id : AuthenticAMD cpu family : 6 model : 3 model name : AMD Duron(tm) Processor stepping: 1 cpu MHz : 797.388 cache size : 64 KB MEM: currently 256, looking to upgrade to 512/768 (depending on available sticks) HDD: 80 GB It is currently doing File/Printer serving. Ideally I'd want it to do Asterisk (2 ISDN BRI 8 phones), File/Printer server on a home network (3 clients) and some light SMTP ( 100 emails a day) Is this machine sufficient for the task? (Ignoring the fact it needs either a multi-BRI card or 2 single BRI cards to be able to connect to the PSTN G) TIA! -- Francesco Peeters GPG Key = AA69 E7C6 1D8A F148 160C D5C4 9943 6E38 D5E3 7704 If your program doesn't recognize my signature, please visit http://www.CAcert.org/index.php?id=3 to retrieve the Root CA certificate. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] Is this server sufficient?
On Wed, June 22, 2005 13:39, Dean Collins said: As an asterisk server it is more than fine but asterisk prefers to be a standalone machine. You would have a lot less issues if you had 2 machines, one handling file serving, SMTP and one dedicate machine for asterisk. Voice isn't very tolerant of interrupts. Cheers, Dean I am aware of that, but the server is doing nada 99.9% of the time right now, so I'd rather give up the other functionality and have it to * rather than the other way round! ;-) I thought I'd give it a try with * and see whether we have issues when the rare SMTP/SMB access occurs (and deal with it then!) I just wanted to be sure that the machine is sufficient to do * and then some... ;-) I think I'll use the upcoming vacation period to go play with it then! :-D Cheers! -- Francesco Peeters GPG Key = AA69 E7C6 1D8A F148 160C D5C4 9943 6E38 D5E3 7704 If your program doesn't recognize my signature, please visit http://www.CAcert.org/index.php?id=3 to retrieve the Root CA certificate. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Is this server sufficient?
This will work fine I have a traveling 700mhz duron that does great. CUPS should not be running but test it your self. Rule of thumb, if you are transcoding many channels then you need a bigger machine. If you are just switching then you can use a smaller machine. On 6/22/05, Francesco Peeters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, June 22, 2005 13:39, Dean Collins said: As an asterisk server it is more than fine but asterisk prefers to be a standalone machine. You would have a lot less issues if you had 2 machines, one handling file serving, SMTP and one dedicate machine for asterisk. Voice isn't very tolerant of interrupts. Cheers, Dean I am aware of that, but the server is doing nada 99.9% of the time right now, so I'd rather give up the other functionality and have it to * rather than the other way round! ;-) I thought I'd give it a try with * and see whether we have issues when the rare SMTP/SMB access occurs (and deal with it then!) I just wanted to be sure that the machine is sufficient to do * and then some... ;-) I think I'll use the upcoming vacation period to go play with it then! :-D Cheers! -- Francesco Peeters GPG Key = AA69 E7C6 1D8A F148 160C D5C4 9943 6E38 D5E3 7704 If your program doesn't recognize my signature, please visit http://www.CAcert.org/index.php?id=3 to retrieve the Root CA certificate. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users -- sig Andrew Latham - AKA: LATHAMA (lay-th-ham-eh) WWW: http://lathama.com Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] If any of the above are down we have bigger problems than my email! /sig ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] Is this server sufficient?
Il giorno mer, 22/06/2005 alle 07.39 -0400, Dean Collins ha scritto: As an asterisk server it is more than fine but asterisk prefers to be a standalone machine. You would have a lot less issues if you had 2 machines, one handling file serving, SMTP and one dedicate machine for asterisk. Voice isn't very tolerant of interrupts. In my case, before switching to dedicated hw, asterisk was running on a file/printer/ldap/web server, since we have an userbase of 10 people dialing out on 2 isdn lines the glitches in audio weren't a real problem because the probability of having an active call while the server is used for some other intensive task is really low with few users. If you're on budget imho you can start by implementing * on the hw you have, and eventually switch to a dedicated machine, just be sure X isn't running on the server. (of course the idea of putting * directly on a production machine and not on a test one isn't a good one, but this is another topic) ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Is this server sufficient?
On Wednesday 22 June 2005 07:27, Francesco Peeters wrote: It is currently doing File/Printer serving. Ideally I'd want it to do Asterisk (2 ISDN BRI 8 phones), File/Printer server on a home network (3 clients) and some light SMTP ( 100 emails a day) Is this machine sufficient for the task? (Ignoring the fact it needs either a multi-BRI card or 2 single BRI cards to be able to connect to the PSTN G) I don't see a reason why it won't work. I have done the same on a 600MHz machine and as long as I did not have anything major going on it worked fine. Of course you will find that you can have potential problems with all sorts of h/w once you put some load on Asterisk. Another box I tried was a top of the line Intel w dual Xeon (also 600MHz) that once cost over $10,000. It did not work too well, even on single phone calls. Then I tried an IBM 600MHz single processor which does just fine. You will notice rather easily when your h/w cannot keep up. Ideally all you do on an Asterisk box is run Asterisk, but as I said you'll notice when it's not up to the task. When you use cpu intensive codecs you'll see when your machine is not up to it. Just dive in and try it. I think someone here got a 233MHz machine to handle single calls... As long as you use Linux you won't have any problems installing Asterisk just to test it. Unlike other O/S's it won't mess anything up. Good Luck! -- List Manager Network Voice Comunications, Inc. netwvcom.com ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
