On Thursday 02 March 2006 22:19, Matt Schulte wrote:
All, I'm not sure how to word this question but we're noticing a lot of
our asterisk boxes no longer have multiple asterisk child processes.
i.e. doing a 'ps ax' reveals only 1 asterisk PID when normally I'm used
to seeing 8+ .. There is no
On 4 Mar 2006, at 08:30, Paul Hewlett wrote:
On Thursday 02 March 2006 22:19, Matt Schulte wrote:
All, I'm not sure how to word this question but we're noticing a
lot of
our asterisk boxes no longer have multiple asterisk child processes.
i.e. doing a 'ps ax' reveals only 1 asterisk PID
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 02:19:29PM -0600, Matt Schulte wrote:
All, I'm not sure how to word this question but we're noticing a lot of
our asterisk boxes no longer have multiple asterisk child processes.
i.e. doing a 'ps ax' reveals only 1 asterisk PID when normally I'm used
to seeing 8+ ..
On 03/04/06 16:30 Paul Hewlett said the following:
On 2.4 kernels you would be using the LinuxThreads implementation of POSIX
threads. This emulated the POSIX threading model with some limitations -
to continue with this thread (pun intended !) and for freebsd users, the
default asterisk
Matt Schulte wrote:
All, I'm not sure how to word this question but we're noticing a lot of
our asterisk boxes no longer have multiple asterisk child processes.
i.e. doing a 'ps ax' reveals only 1 asterisk PID when normally I'm used
to seeing 8+ .. There is no rhyme or reason to it, and we're
On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 11:39:49AM -0600, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
Matt Schulte wrote:
All, I'm not sure how to word this question but we're noticing a lot of
our asterisk boxes no longer have multiple asterisk child processes.
i.e. doing a 'ps ax' reveals only 1 asterisk PID when normally
All, I'm not sure how to word this question but we're noticing a lot of
our asterisk boxes no longer have multiple asterisk child processes.
i.e. doing a 'ps ax' reveals only 1 asterisk PID when normally I'm used
to seeing 8+ .. There is no rhyme or reason to it, and we're using the
safe_asterisk
