On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 01:47:57PM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Tzafrir Cohen
tzafrir.co...@xorcom.comwrote:
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 07:44:07AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 5:58 AM, Tzafrir Cohen tzafrir.co...@xorcom.com
wrote:
using mixmonitor might not be such a good idea. afaik the mixing of
the recordings of the two channels starts after ending the call
causing a high cpu load. if you have recordings going on all the time
moving the 2 files that has to be mixed to a dedicated mixing server
might be a good
Again, how many calls were you able record using RAMdisk? Anywhere 300?
As I stated before, this is going to be dependent on how you're
manipulating the calls and the gear you're running on. The nice thing
about your 'just broadcast the entire LAN to the recording solution'
is that the
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:08 AM, Erik de Wildi...@meetmecall.nl wrote:
using mixmonitor might not be such a good idea. afaik the mixing of
the recordings of the two channels starts after ending the call
causing a high cpu load.
Incorrect.
The 'mix' in Mixmonitor() is that two legs of a call are
I imagine this setup will need those two communicating entities to
be part
of the pabx. But support extension 100 of PABX A (legacy) calls 101
on the
same platform. I want asterisk connected to PABX A via E1/T1 to
know about
that call and start recording (tap) without bridging or
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 01:15:12AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 1:03 AM, Tzafrir Cohen tzafrir.co...@xorcom.comwrote:
On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 11:06:39PM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Research resea...@businesstz.com
wrote:
Hello
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 5:58 AM, Tzafrir Cohen tzafrir.co...@xorcom.comwrote:
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 01:15:12AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 1:03 AM, Tzafrir Cohen tzafrir.co...@xorcom.com
wrote:
On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 11:06:39PM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
On
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 07:44:07AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 5:58 AM, Tzafrir Cohen tzafrir.co...@xorcom.comwrote:
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 01:15:12AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 1:03 AM, Tzafrir Cohen tzafrir.co...@xorcom.com
wrote:
On
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Tzafrir Cohen tzafrir.co...@xorcom.comwrote:
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 07:44:07AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 5:58 AM, Tzafrir Cohen tzafrir.co...@xorcom.com
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 01:15:12AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
On
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 07:44:07AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 5:58 AM, Tzafrir Cohen
tzafrir.co...@xorcom.comwrote:
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 01:15:12AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 1:03 AM, Tzafrir Cohen
tzafrir.co...@xorcom.com
wrote:
I imagine this setup will need those two communicating entities to be part
of the pabx. But support extension 100 of PABX A (legacy) calls 101 on the
same platform. I want asterisk connected to PABX A via E1/T1 to know about
that call and start recording (tap) without bridging or being part
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Steve
Totarostot...@first-notification.com wrote:
Did you push it past 300 on two year old hardware and software?
old hardware yes.
old software no.
The servers are more than 3 years old
Core 2 Duo Dell Dimension desktop as proof of concept?
are core 2 duo's
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Research resea...@businesstz.com wrote:
Hello team;
While am aware and active user of astersk monitor function for recording, i
would like to know if i can use asterisk as a pure recording server(like
nice or witness) for some other PABX's extensions (both
I have also seen:
PSTN asterisk legacy
Which also gives you a migration path
PaulH
Research wrote:
Hello team;
While am aware and active user of astersk monitor function for
recording, i would like to know if i can use asterisk as a pure
recording server(like nice or
Paul,
He already said, While am aware and active user of astersk monitor function
for recording so I don't think migration path is an issue.
A dedicated recording server is recommended if you are going to be recording
a good deal of calls.
You certainly would not want to run out of hard drive
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Steve
Totarostot...@asteriskhelpdesk.com wrote:
A dedicated recording server is recommended if you are going to be recording
a good deal of calls.
You certainly would not want to run out of hard drive space on your Asterisk
server and bring it down.
Bring it
Did you push it past 300 on two year old hardware and software? Core 2 Duo
Dell Dimension desktop as proof of concept?
Port mirroring is basic on almost any newer switch. Login, enable port
monitoring, write mem, done.
With a GUI, it takes all of thirty seconds. I don't see how this is heavy
In layman's terms, if you read the OP's post, they want a *recording server*.
With no mention of any other functionality.
Asterisk *COULD* be used as a recording server but that is really not the
proper tool, on the other hand OrecX *IS* a recording server, therefore the
proper tool.
I *COULD*
On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 11:06:39PM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Research resea...@businesstz.com wrote:
Hello team;
While am aware and active user of astersk monitor function for recording, i
would like to know if i can use asterisk as a pure recording
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 1:03 AM, Tzafrir Cohen tzafrir.co...@xorcom.comwrote:
On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 11:06:39PM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Research resea...@businesstz.com
wrote:
Hello team;
While am aware and active user of astersk monitor function
20 matches
Mail list logo
