On 18 Apr 2006, at 09:27, Dave Cotton wrote:
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 09:13 +0100, Lee Archer wrote:
Any thoughts as to why only 1 of my boxes has this problem?
Is it really a problem?
I'm on a
2.6 kernel so any more ideas?
Can someone answer what was the original purpose of the
"export LD
om: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave
Cotton
Sent: 18 April 2006 10:02
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] multiple asterisk process ?
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 09:33 +0100, Lee Archer wrote:
> Yes it is a problem cos
ling List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] multiple asterisk process ?
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 09:13 +0100, Lee Archer wrote:
Any thoughts as to why only 1 of my boxes has this problem?
Is it really a problem?
I'm on a
2.6 kern
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 09:33 +0100, Lee Archer wrote:
> Yes it is a problem cos after a while of just leaving it the system is
> unable to make calls out via the PSTN, which is why I have spent time
> with the telco, more like wasted time, and played with zaptel's make
> options. After trying a
: 18 April 2006 09:27
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] multiple asterisk process ?
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 09:13 +0100, Lee Archer wrote:
> Any thoughts as to why only 1 of my boxes has this problem?
Is it really a problem?
> I'm on
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 09:13 +0100, Lee Archer wrote:
> Any thoughts as to why only 1 of my boxes has this problem?
Is it really a problem?
> I'm on a
> 2.6 kernel so any more ideas?
Can someone answer what was the original purpose of the
"export LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.4.1" in the asterisk script?
rcial Discussion
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] multiple asterisk process ?
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 08:29 +0100, Tim Panton wrote:
>
> I'd guess you have a startup script for asterisk that is setting the
> LD_ASSUME_KERNEL environment variable.
>
> To check, find the 'main'
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 08:29 +0100, Tim Panton wrote:
>
> I'd guess you have a startup script for asterisk that is setting the
> LD_ASSUME_KERNEL environment variable.
>
> To check, find the 'main' asterisk process id (almost always the
> lowest numbered asterisk process)
> then look (as root) i
On 18 Apr 2006, at 03:20, stevanus wrote:
Hmm...my output for getconf GNU_LIBPTHREAD_VERSION is NPTL 2.3.4..
I don't know what it's mean anyway :P
And for Lee, I'm configuring my asterisk through amp (now freepbx),
but I do some custom configuration manually too ;)
I guess Paul is right, I
Hmm...my output for getconf GNU_LIBPTHREAD_VERSION is NPTL 2.3.4..
I don't know what it's mean anyway :P
And for Lee, I'm configuring my asterisk through amp (now freepbx), but
I do some custom configuration manually too ;)
I guess Paul is right, I suspect there are bugs in asterisk that
have
Thanks for clarifying that Paul. my output for getconf is:
linuxthreads-0.10
so i guess is "normal" to have several threads shown by "ps axu" right?
On 4/17/06, Dave Cotton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-04-17 at 19:12 +0200, Paul Hewlett wrote:
>
> > This is incorrect. Asterisk i
On Mon, 2006-04-17 at 19:12 +0200, Paul Hewlett wrote:
> This is incorrect. Asterisk is a multithreaded system but how the threads
> are handled by the OS depends on the version of threads that is being used.
>For Linuxthreads (kernel 2.4), one would see a separate entry for each
> thread
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of stevanus
> > Sent: 17 April 2006 10:10
> > To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
> > Subject: [Asterisk-Users] multiple asteris
MAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of stevanus
> Sent: 17 April 2006 10:10
> To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
> Subject: [Asterisk-Users] multiple asterisk process ?
>
> Hi,
>
> Why does my asterisk keep forking instances at random times everyday?
>
>
Lee
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of stevanus
Sent: 17 April 2006 10:10
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: [Asterisk-Users] multiple asterisk process ?
Hi,
Why does my asterisk keep forking instances at random
Hi,
Why does my asterisk keep forking instances at random times everyday?
When I do ps aux, I got this:
asterisk 13068 2.2 5.1 25924 12276 ? Sl 06:00 13:18 asterisk
-vvvg -c
asterisk 23558 0.0 5.1 26040 12248 ? S09:57 0:00 asterisk
-vvvg -c
asterisk 29832 0.0 5.1 25
Hi
Il giorno mer, 24-11-2004 alle 19:48 +0100, Ming-Wei Shih ha scritto:
> Hong Kim wrote:
>
> >I'm running * on Redhat9 with E100P and ISDN PRI.
> >When I executed asterisk, I could see about 25
> >asterisk processes.
> >Did someone experienced this?
> >
> >Regards,
> >Hong
> I only see one :)
Hong Kim wrote:
I'm running * on Redhat9 with E100P and ISDN PRI.
When I executed asterisk, I could see about 25
asterisk processes.
Did someone experienced this?
Regards,
Hong
__
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
___
David Boyd wrote:
[snip]
>
> Greg, you need chill; take a deep breath; now say to yourself, let it
> g!!
>
Does "hypertensio arteriale" and "myocardial infarction" ring a bell..?
> Critch, has the right to respond, anyway he desires. People need to
> be responsible for
On 10:42 AM 11/20/2004, Jose Hernandez wrote:
>
>>Did you bother using google?
>
>I searched google but could not find an answer. Any other suggestions?
>
http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/2004-April/043852.html
___
Asterisk-Users mailing l
On Sat, 2004-11-20 at 01:32, Gregory Junker wrote:
> > Add to it, my message wasn't a flame but rather a terse comment. Your
>
> Never said it was a flame. I said it was in a tone virutally guaranteed
> to make the guy consider you and everyone on the list to be a conceited
> jackass.
>
> The d
Add to it, my message wasn't a flame but rather a terse comment. Your
Never said it was a flame. I said it was in a tone virutally guaranteed
to make the guy consider you and everyone on the list to be a conceited
jackass.
The difference in your perception of your replies (the one I snipped
inc
On Sat, 2004-11-20 at 01:02 -0500, Gregory Junker wrote:
> This was addressed in a different thread, as I recall, regarding
> "newbie" posters, and it was decided, as far as I could tell, that no
> benefit would be had of such a thing. The feeling was that newbies
> should benefit from veteran e
oh hell I give up, this is the third time that THunderbird would have
sent my mail on its own, what am I on a timer?
At any rate, the point is that I'll bet that even you, Steve, didn't
fall out of the crib knowing everything there is to know, and that at
some point, you even asked questions of
This was addressed in a different thread, as I recall, regarding
"newbie" posters, and it was decided, as far as I could tell, that no
benefit would be had of such a thing. The feeling was that newbies
should benefit from veteran experience too.
Steven Critchfield wrote:
On Sat, 2004-11-20 at 0
I *do* do the same for his posts. Every hundredth one or so, I feel it
necessary to let the poor guy or gal who was unlucky enough to ask a
simple question that "Critch" felt the need to answer, that we all were
not like that. As a result, that person might even ask another question
someday.
I
On Sat, 2004-11-20 at 00:42 -0500, Gregory Junker wrote:
> And Steve provides yet another cordial, extremely helpful reply.
>
> Really, friend, does it do *that* much for your ego to step on people in
> public? If you can't be friendly, just ignore the damn email, no matter
> how many times the
Gregory Junker wrote:
And Steve provides yet another cordial, extremely helpful reply.
Really, friend, does it do *that* much for your ego to step on people in
public? If you can't be friendly, just ignore the damn email, no matter
how many times the question has been asked.
Maybe you could do th
And Steve provides yet another cordial, extremely helpful reply.
Really, friend, does it do *that* much for your ego to step on people in
public? If you can't be friendly, just ignore the damn email, no matter
how many times the question has been asked.
Greg
Steven Critchfield wrote:
On Fri, 200
On Fri, 2004-11-19 at 21:08 -0800, Hong Kim wrote:
> I'm running * on Redhat9 with E100P and ISDN PRI.
> When I executed asterisk, I could see about 25
> asterisk processes.
> Did someone experienced this?
Did you bother using google?
--
Steven Critchfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
___
I'm running * on Redhat9 with E100P and ISDN PRI.
When I executed asterisk, I could see about 25
asterisk processes.
Did someone experienced this?
Regards,
Hong
__
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
31 matches
Mail list logo
