(but I don't think it is a "vmware" specific thing, in general, it a virtual server "thing")
Media suffers from latency, and if the media is being played from a virtual server with a latency issue (perhaps due to timing) "yucky stuff happens". What he is saying is the media is anchored but being "bounced" so it is not being encoded in any way. I believe what he is saying, though I am not sure anyone has tested it under a real load to verify this does not have a detrimental effect. I would still have a concern over "resources" in general in a virtual environment, but thats me. On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Paul Scheepens <[email protected]> wrote: > 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-<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/ > -- ====================== 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/
