Here's what I would do...
SIPX1 – Physical (or virtual) Server (internal network) - Load Balanced Registrar / SIP Router SIPX2 – Physical (or virtual) Server (internal network) - Load Balanced Registrar / SIP Router SBC1 – Virtual Server (dmz - no nat to internal) - Primary ITSP Gateway (SBC) SBC2 – Virtual Server (dmz - no nat to internal) - Redundant ITSP Gateway (SBC) SIPCN1 – Physical Server (Internal Network) - Conferencing SIPWM1 – Physical Server (Internal Network) - Voicemail / Managment (sipxconfig) / ACD / IM Mike On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Talbot, Peter < [email protected]> wrote: > Figures, all that rambling and I leave out one of the most important bits - > numbers. We're looking in the 8-12k range. > > Thank you, > Peter Talbot > [v1.0.07.109] > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] on behalf of Michael Picher > Sent: Sat 9/25/2010 8:52 AM > To: Discussion list for users of sipXecs software > Subject: Re: [sipx-users] SIP Server Questions (Virtual vs Physical) > > Peter, > > I didn't see this asked or offered in the email.. How large is this > install > anyway? We've got 8K user systems running on 3 servers... > > Mike > > On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Talbot, Peter < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > OK. I'll try to reply in a way that hopefully clarifies a few things, if > > I miss a response someone was looking for, please feel free to contact me > > directly. > > > > > > > > Our SBC servers (which are running sipXecs, and ONLY running the *SIP > > TRUNKING* Role) are only doing call build up. Actual voice traffic (voice > > data/payload/whatever) is handled by the SIP Router Role (of which SIP > Proxy > > is part of). > > > > > > > > Tony - you keep saying SIP Proxy needs to be enabled on any system in an > HA > > cluster. I get that, since SIP Proxy is a service carried on the SIP > Router > > role (which is the only 'HA enabled' roles in sipXecs at this time). It > is > > of course enabled on the 'core' (SIP ROUTER ROLE) servers (Primary and > > Secondary, or Primary and Redundant to use terms directly from the > software > > itself). There is no SIP Proxy ROLE, SIP Proxy is a service that runs as > > part of the SIP Router Role. So by telling me over and over that the SIP > > Proxy must be running on all servers, you are seriously confusing me, and > I > > bet, a lot of the community that is not as familiar with the product as > you > > are. > > > > > > > > So. The way our system is set up (currently, right now, today) is like > this > > (and works mostly - RE: my strange SRV happenings with inbound calls > hitting > > SIPX2 I mentioned some time back - I now realize that it's not an > > Active/Passive HA, but rather an Active/Active one): > > > > > > > > · On our DMZ are two sipXecs servers, each of which is ONLY > > running the *SIP Trunking Role* (which is what I refer to as our SBCs > > (sorry for any confusion!)). All these two servers do, is handle > singalling > > with our ITSPs. Only ONE of these actually has a Gateway and Dialing plan > > attached to it - the other is doing nothing (we hope to get it hooked up > to > > sipstation.com soon) > > > > · Inside our network are two more servers, a Primary and > Redundant > > sipXecs server, each of which has a variety of roles. Specifically > though: > > server 1 has *SIP Router Role* enabled, and server 2 has *Redundant SIP > > Router Role*. Server 1 carries the rest of the Roles. Our SRV records > > (which are set up correctly) are all prioritized AND weighted to use > server > > 1 (though I'm still oddly seeing calls try to go to server 2, but that's > off > > topic). > > > > > > > > In the proposition I made in my original email of this thread, all I > break > > out the VM and Conference Roles onto stand alone physical servers, and > > virtualized the remaining roles (IM and ACD). > > > > > > > > This has been proven to work by me, with an ITSP, at LEAST with minimal > > call volume. If someone can tell me why it won't work, please do so - but > > explain it as well, rather than simply telling me it'll get jitter. > > > > > > > > I say again: since the SBCs don't actually have any voice traffic on > them, > > it should be perfectly safe to virtualize those. > > > > > > > > In this setup, sipXbridge is NOT anchoring the media, in fact, the SIPX > > Router servers are. And always will. sipXbridge only anchors the call if > > they are also running the SIP Router Role. Am I mistaken there? > > > > > > > > I can send along a SIPViewer breakdown of what an ITSP call looks like in > > our environment if you want, to help clarify more if necessary. > > > > > > > > Also - I didn't see any responses yet - does anybody know anything about > > load-testing tools - actually used them - as this would be a great, and > very > > quick way, to prove if my setup works or not. > > > > > > > > I own the book, I'm familiar with the wiki, and even so I still have > > problems finding answers to questions in those places - which is why I am > > turning to you, the experts, more and more often. Apologies if this comes > > off as ranting or rude, but like Matt mentioned in one of his replies, a > lot > > of responses I get back from the list are not informative enough to be > > helpful. > > > > > > > > Peter Talbot > > > > [v1.0.07.109] > > > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Tony Graziano > > *Sent:* Thursday, September 23, 2010 11:33 AM > > > > *To:* Discussion list for users of sipXecs software > > *Cc:* [email protected] > > *Subject:* Re: [sipx-users] SIP Server Questions (Virtual vs Physical) > > > > > > > > (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/ > > > > > > -- > There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those who understand binary and > those who don't. > > [email protected] > blog: http://www.sipxecs.info > call: sip:[email protected] <sip%[email protected]> < > sip%[email protected] <sip%[email protected]>> > > > _______________________________________________ > sipx-users mailing list > [email protected] > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/ > -- There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't. [email protected] blog: http://www.sipxecs.info call: sip:[email protected] <sip%[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
