+1 to visual cues and big fat warnings.

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Damian Krzeminski <[email protected]>wrote:

> Damian Krzeminski wrote:
> > Scott Lawrence wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 07:25 -0500, Damian Krzeminski wrote:
> >>> Nikolay Kondratyev wrote:
> >>>> Just imho:
> >>>>
> >>>> Won't it be better to keep "activate" button in the UI?
> >>>>
> >>>> Because there is hi possibility that "auto-activation" will lead to
> >>>> numerous proxy/registrar restarts instead of just one….
> >>>>
> >>>> I think, that auto activation of dialplan creates conditions for
> >>>> significant non necessary downtime…
> >>>>
> >>>> Again: this is just imho from the administrator perspective…
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks and regards,
> >>>>
> >>>> Nikolay.
> >>>>
> >>> Both proxy and registrar restart quickly and their restart does not
> affect
> >>> calls that are already in progress. It would be better if they did not
> >>> require restart after dial plan changes.
> >> In principle, dial plan changes should not be too hard to make
> >> reloadable, and we now have most of the infrastructure in place that we
> >> would need to do so (sipXsupervisor knows when they are replicated, so
> >> it could signal the process in some way to reload the files).  Not
> >> something for 4.0, but a good candidate for 4.2.
> >
> > Great. I'll open an issue.
> >
> >>> We really cannot live with manual activation for much longer. There are
> >>> just too many places that affect dial plan and I have seen on this list
> >>> many reports of problems that originated from dial plan not being
> activated.
> >> I think a simple warning on the screen that you have uncommitted changes
> >> would help that quite a lot.
> >>
> >
> > That does not work for changes that are result of end user action. Only
> > administrator can activate the profile manually...
> >
> >>> The activation strategy has a "quite time" interval that can be tweaked
> -
> >>> by default it waits 15 seconds of quiet time (no dial plan related
> changes)
> >>> before activating it.
> >>>
> >>> Let's give it a try: if it causes problems we can get it back to "on
> >>> demand" strategy.
> >> I share Nikolay's concern... restart is not completely harmless... on a
> >> busy system (especially one without HA) it could be disruptive.
> >
> > That's troubling. I was under impression we talked about switching to
> > automatic activation for some time now. I guess I must have been having
> > this conversation in my head only. I apologize for not communicating it
> better.
> > Can we still try to test it or should I revert it now?
> >
> >> At the very least, I suspect that 'quiet time' should be much longer (at
> >> least a minute), and there should be a display on the page of what state
> >> it is in.
> >
> > Will increase it to 60 seconds if we decide this code can stay in.
> >
> >> Incidentally... on an HA system, does sipXconfig restart services on
> >> both systems at the same time?  It would be less disruptive to restart
> >> services on each host on a rolling schedule so that redundant services
> >> won't be restarting at the same time.
> >>
> >
> > No - sipXconfig does not try to spread service restarts in any way yet.
> > D.
> >
>
> How about sipXconfig replicating the new dial plans but let's admin decide
> when to restart services.
> We could add visual cues to all the services that should be restarted and a
> big fat warning on top of every page that some services should be
> restarted...
>
> That would be consistent with many suggestions and existing issues around
> generating configs for devices (for example
> http://track.sipfoundry.org/browse/XCF-3170)
> D.
>
> _______________________________________________
> sipx-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev
> Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
>
_______________________________________________
sipx-dev mailing list
[email protected]
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev
Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev

Reply via email to