Hi Joegen,

Just so that I (and the rest) understand it correctly:

Do you mean that VMWare only gives problems if audio needs to be encoded 
(generated)/recoded(processed)?
And as the SBC is only relaying the RTP stream it does not matter that the 
timers are not OK.

Paul

Joegen Baclor <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> sipXBridge will not be an issue with VM.  The only issue with VM and
> Media Servers like Freeswitch in your case is the accuracy of the 
> timers used in a VM which will be directly have an affect on audio 
> sampling.   The media anchor is sipXrelay.  It does not process nor 
> generate any media and, thus, will not require multi-media timer 
> accuracy to perform its function.  Hope that clears things up a bit.
> 
> Joegen
> 
> 
> On Thursday, 23 September, 2010 04:12 PM, Mark Theis wrote: 
> This is my point. I am looking for the answer. For some reason it 
> feels like people make comments that do not actually inform me of 
> anything. SipXbridge is not helping me. But... What would be the 
> best alternative?
> 
> Can someone please give the rest of us some pointers? I know that I 
> have read all the wiki and I am still lost. Failover and redundancy 
> is driving me crazy. Does redundant gateways (sip trunks) work? 
> 
> The wiki has just enough info to nake ne hungry. Any alternative links?
> 
> Sorry to rant. Getting very fryustrated.
> 
> -Mark 
> Mark D. Theis 
> 
> Southern California Telephone & Energy 
> 27515 Enterprise Circle West, Temecula Ca. 92590 
> 
> From: [email protected] <sipx-users-
> [email protected]> 
> To: Discussion list for users of sipXecs software <sipx-
> [email protected]> 
> Cc: [email protected] <sipx-users-
> [email protected]> 
> Sent: Thu Sep 23 00:48:16 2010
> Subject: Re: [sipx-users] SIP Server Questions (Virtual vs Physical) 

> R-r-r-r-right, sipxbridge is a-a-a-a-nchoring the m-m-m--media...

> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 3:06 AM, Paul Scheepens <[email protected]> 
wrote:
> Just a question on the SBC's, as they are handling voice as well, 
> wouldn't there be a (possible) issue with VM. 
> TeTeTeTalking with the outside world should be PePePePerfect IMHoHO. 
> 
> Paul 
> 

> 
> From: 
> 
> Mark Theis <[email protected]> 
> 
> To: 
> 
> Discussion list for users of sipXecs software 
<[email protected]>
> 
> Date: 
> 
> 23-09-2010 06:40 
> 
> Subject: 
> 
> Re: [sipx-users] SIP Server Questions (Virtual vs Physical) 
> 
> Sent by: 
> 
> [email protected]
> 
> 

> 
> 
> 
> Peter, 
>   
> I like your plan.  I am not an expert (maybe because I have only 
> been working with this for a month or so) yet, but…. What were you 
> thinking to use as your SBC1 and SBC2?  Each of your other devices’ 
> names hinted at (or explicitly said) sipXecs… but the SBC has me 
> wondering.  Are you thinking to have 2 separate ITSP Gateway (SBC) 
> sipXecs VM’s? 
>   
> As you might have noticed from my last post a couple minutes ago, I 
> want to do something very similar to yours… but… all of my users 
> will be external. And… I have my servers geo-diverse. This may be a 
> problem for me, but I could not find another solution  aside from 
> sipXecs that claimed the ability to solve my problems. 
>   
> Thanks! 
>   
> Mark Theis 
>   
> Southern California Telephone and Energy 
> 
> Office (951) 693-1880 Ext. 212 
> Fax (951) 693-1550
> Cell (951) 545-1013  or (949) 682-VOIP
> 
> 27515 Enterprise Circle West 
> Temecula, CA. 92590
> [email protected] 
>   
> From: [email protected] [mailto:sipx-users-
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Talbot, Peter
> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 1:43 PM
> To: Discussion list for users of sipXecs software
> Subject: [sipx-users] SIP Server Questions (Virtual vs Physical) 
>   
> Hi all. 
>   
> In further pursuing a ‘Production Rollout’ ready implementation of 
> sipXecs, I had some final questions, mostly in regards to what can 
> and cannot be Virtualized. Currently it is looking like anything 
> that actually handles voice traffic (whether recorded messages or 
> ongoing conversations) should remain physical due to timing 
> constraints, but other Roles can be Virtualized. 
>   
> What I am loosely looking at then, in a server layout fashion, would
> be something along the lines of: 
>   
> SIPX1 – Physical Server (Internal network) - Management/Primary SIP 
Router 
> SIPX2 – Physical Server (Internal Network) - Redundant SIP Router 
> SBC1 – Virtual Server (DMZ) - Primary ITSP Gateway (SBC) 
> SBC2 – Virtual Server (DMZ) - Redundant ITSP Gateway (SBC) 
> SIPCN1 – Physical Server (Internal Network) - Conferencing 
> SIPWM1 – Physical Server (Internal Network) - Voicemail 
> SIPX3 – Virtual Server (Internal Network) - ACD/Instant Messaging 
>   
> Physical and Virtual Servers would all be 64bit, running a minimum 
> of 8GB of RAM, the VM1 machine having extra storage space, and all 
> with a good processors (well above the recommended listed in 
> Michael’s book) and GB Ethernet. Virtual Machines would have 
> slightly less power, but the Roles are slightly less power hungry 
> anyway. In this instance, Remote Workers would be connected via VPN 
> to our internal network, so Remote Worker traffic would act just 
> like ‘inside user’ traffic. 
>   
> Does the above seem like a plausible solution? 
>   
> As a secondary necessity – in regards to load testing – what tools 
> of those available (like WinSIP) would any of you recommend? 
>   
> Peter Talbot 
> [v1.0.07.109]_______________________________________________ 
> 
> sipx-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> List Archive: 
> http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/ 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sipx-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ======================
> Tony Graziano, Manager
> Telephone: 434.984.8430
> sip: [email protected]
> Fax: 434.984.8431
> 
> Email: [email protected]
> 
> LAN/Telephony/Security and Control Systems Helpdesk:
> Telephone: 434.984.8426
> sip: [email protected]
> Fax: 434.984.8427
> 
> Helpdesk Contract Customers:
> http://www.myitdepartment.net/gethelp/
> 
> Why do mathematicians always confuse Halloween and Christmas?
> Because 31 Oct = 25 Dec.

> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sipx-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
> _______________________________________________
> sipx-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
_______________________________________________
sipx-users mailing list
[email protected]
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/

Reply via email to