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,
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) in the
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' asterisk process id (almost always
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?
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 a
2.6 kernel so any
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
-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 kernel so any more ideas
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 after a while
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
I had this and no one could really answer it. I only get it 1 of my
systems. I've tried a few things, from removing zaptel watchdog - since
I contacted the telco and they said I had a hung channel, to rebuilding
* with different options. Are you configuring * manually or using a
GUI?
Lee
Asterisk is a multithreaded system. I have not in mind how many
threads open and where. But ie, if you have enabled pbx_spool.so to
generate calls from files, that module launch its own thread to
monitor the calls directory, MOH launch other thread, every channel
has its own thread, the CLI has
On Monday 17 April 2006 16:03, Moises Silva wrote:
Asterisk is a multithreaded system. I have not in mind how many
threads open and where. But ie, if you have enabled pbx_spool.so to
generate calls from files, that module launch its own thread to
monitor the calls directory, MOH launch other
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
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 is a
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
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
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
snip
I only see one :)
$ ps -ef
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
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 list
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 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]
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,
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
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
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.
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
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
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
28 matches
Mail list logo
