Hi Raul,
I think that Bacula is going to cause you many headaches with Asterisk.
Backups are (surprise!) I/O intensive and when streaming data from the
network to disk or tape it will saturate the available bandwidth. This
will cause the I/O wait time on the CPU to run high and effectively
shadowym wrote:
Whatever your many reasons, using that stuff for Asterisk is a waste of money
but go crazy if you want!
Well, all I can say is, you're clearly not dealing with my clients. They
want the phones to work. Always. When they don't work, the clients get
very, very angry at me.
Raúl Gómez C. wrote:
Thinking about my original post, I was reluctant of installing my PBX
on a shared system, is a Dell PowerEdge 2950 with 2 Intel Xeon Dual
Core CPUs @2GHz (4 totals cores) and 4GB RAM which serves as Domain
Controller and File Server (Samba), central backup server
Matthew J. Roth wrote:
For 35 simultaneous calls, I'd recommend a dedicated server with a 3.0
GHz dual-core CPU, 2 GB of RAM, and fast SCSI disks. In my experience,
the FSB can be just as important as processor speed so keep that in mind
as you lay out your budget. You should be able to
Message-
From: Matthew J. Roth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 8:53 AM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] Is there real benefits on a SMP machine for
Asterisk?
Raúl Gómez C. wrote:
Thinking about my original
shadowym wrote:
I hope I am not opening a can of worms here but IMHO there is
ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO USE SCSI anymore! For sure not for this
application but most other things too. SATA is mature now, does
command queuing, and works well on 2.6 kernels. Oh, there is the
issue of cost
Thanks Matthew and every one who had replied to my post!
I will install my Sangoma A400D card on my existing server and I will give
it a try, since we have the old PBX still working (its planned to be on
operation until the end of this year) it will serve as a lab, and if there
is much trouble we
: [asterisk-users] Is there real benefits on a SMP machine for
Asterisk?
shadowym wrote:
I hope I am not opening a can of worms here but IMHO there is
ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO USE SCSI anymore! For sure not for this
application but most other things too. SATA is mature now, does
command queuing
On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 05:29:24PM +0200, Philipp Kempgen wrote:
Atis Lezdins wrote:
I have 8-core system that has web interface + sql + java + some other stuff
running, and at 30 simultenous calls i get loadavg maximum of 3.
I wouldn't be too happy about a system with a
loadavg of 3.
Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
The loadavg is the average number of threads[0] ready to run (or running).
To me it seems that there are important differences between
systems, especially Linux/Unix, as of which of the states in
following are counted in:
- running (i.e. using the CPU)
- runnable (i.e.
On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 03:31:09PM +0200, Philipp Kempgen wrote:
Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
The loadavg is the average number of threads[0] ready to run (or running).
To me it seems that there are important differences between
systems, especially Linux/Unix, as of which of the states in
12, 2007 8:44 AM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] Is there real benefits on a SMP machine for
Asterisk?
On 10/12/07, Philipp Kempgen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wouldn't be too happy about a system with a
loadavg of 3.
The system he
In 'top', you can always look at what percentage of your CPU is idle.
Subtract that from 100 and you've got your load average.
Cpu(s): 1.1% us, 0.6% sy, 0.0% ni, *98.1% id*, 0.1% wa, 0.1% hi,
0.0% si
Erik Anderson wrote:
On 10/12/07, Philipp Kempgen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't
Steve Totaro wrote:
I don't think that is correct. I am running worldcommunitygrid and this
is what I get
top - 13:18:56 up 3 days, 22:49, 1 user, load average: 4.00, 4.04, 4.02
Cpu0:0.0%us,0.7%sy,99.3%ni,0.0%id,0.0%wa,0.0%hi,0.0%si,0.0%st
I don't think that is correct. I am running worldcommunitygrid and this
is what I get
top - 13:18:56 up 3 days, 22:49, 1 user, load average: 4.00, 4.04, 4.02
Cpu0:0.0%us,0.7%sy,99.3%ni,0.0%id,0.0%wa,0.0%hi,0.0%si,0.0%st
Cpu1:0.0%us,0.0%sy,100.0%ni,0.0%id,0.0%wa,0.0%hi,0.0%si,0.0%st
On 10/12/07, Philipp Kempgen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think there is a formula like
cpu usage = loadavg / #cpus
A loadavg of 3 says that there are 3 processes waiting to
be executed.
Anyway, I'll admit that a loadavg of 3 /might/ be ok.
Here's a quote from this page:
Erik Anderson wrote:
On 10/12/07, Philipp Kempgen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wouldn't be too happy about a system with a
loadavg of 3.
The system he mentioned had 8 cores, though. So a load average of 3
is less than 50% usage.
I don't think there is a formula like
cpu usage = loadavg /
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
On Friday 12 October 2007 10:29:24 Philipp Kempgen wrote:
Atis Lezdins wrote:
I have 8-core system that has web interface + sql + java + some other
stuff running, and at 30 simultenous calls i get loadavg maximum of 3.
I wouldn't be too happy
Atis Lezdins wrote:
I have 8-core system that has web interface + sql + java + some other stuff
running, and at 30 simultenous calls i get loadavg maximum of 3.
I wouldn't be too happy about a system with a
loadavg of 3.
Regards,
Philipp Kempgen
--
amooma GmbH - Bachstr. 126 - 56566
On Friday 12 October 2007 11:10:02 Gordon Henderson wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
On Friday 12 October 2007 10:29:24 Philipp Kempgen wrote:
Atis Lezdins wrote:
I have 8-core system that has web interface + sql + java + some other
stuff running, and at 30 simultenous
On Friday 12 October 2007 10:29:24 Philipp Kempgen wrote:
Atis Lezdins wrote:
I have 8-core system that has web interface + sql + java + some other
stuff running, and at 30 simultenous calls i get loadavg maximum of 3.
I wouldn't be too happy about a system with a
loadavg of 3.
I dunno, 3
Well, this has become a hot topic! :p
Thinking about my original post, I was reluctant of installing my PBX on a
shared system, is a Dell PowerEdge 2950 with 2 Intel Xeon Dual Core CPUs
@2GHz (4 totals cores) and 4GB RAM which serves as Domain Controller and
File Server (Samba), central backup
Sorry...I should have been more specific in my original reply.
In 'top', you can always look at what percentage of your CPU is
idle. Subtract that from 100 and you've got your load average.
I should have said you get your average load percentage, rather than
just average load.
Mik Cheez
Actually, that looks right...look at your load average...
Steve Totaro wrote:
I don't think that is correct. I am running worldcommunitygrid and this
is what I get
top - 13:18:56 up 3 days, 22:49, 1 user, load average: 4.00, 4.04, 4.02
On 10/12/07, Philipp Kempgen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wouldn't be too happy about a system with a
loadavg of 3.
The system he mentioned had 8 cores, though. So a load average of 3
is less than 50% usage.
-erik
___
--Bandwidth and Colocation
Raúl Gómez C. wrote:
Thinking about my original post, I was reluctant of installing my PBX on a
shared system, is a Dell PowerEdge 2950 with 2 Intel Xeon Dual Core CPUs
@2GHz (4 totals cores) and 4GB RAM which serves as Domain Controller and
File Server (Samba), central backup server (Bacula
Hi list,
I'm now considering to buy a new server for an Asterisk installation, since
I've been kindly
advisedhttp://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/2007-October/198146.htmlnot
to use an old server for a mission critical app...
Well, playing around in Dell's, HP's and IBM's online
At this point I was wondering if Asterisk gets real benefits on systems
with several cores (up to 8 in Dell PE2950) for a system that will handle
up to 35 simultaneous SIP call with 10 FXO ports and 2 FXS for analog
phones/fax (Sangoma A400D PCI card).
I suppose that yes. Asterisk uses
On 10/11/07, Raúl Gómez C. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At this point I was wondering if Asterisk gets real benefits on systems with
several cores (up to 8 in Dell PE2950) for a system that will handle up to
35 simultaneous SIP call with 10 FXO ports and 2 FXS for analog phones/fax
(Sangoma
Erik Anderson wrote:
For this load level (even with high-load transcoding), a multi-core
machine certainly would not be needed. That said, it certainly
wouldn't hurt anything to add on extra cores, especially if they're
free ;-)
Raul,
The points concerning overall load are valid, but I agree
Hi Gerald,
Well we have 2 APC UPSes in the server room, so each power supply will be
connected to one UPS, and the UPSes are connected to (a transfer system of)
an auxiliary power generator that start in less than a minute after a
blackout. The server will have RAID5, of SAS disc
But thanks for
31 matches
Mail list logo
