I wasn't intending to blame Ira for his own problems - I was intending to point out that running a production system on discarded hardware is a really bad idea.
I wasn't even suggesting a mammoth server - as you may or may not have seen in my subsequent reply to him, the place I work for sells fairly low-end servers as Asterisk boxes which (at least in Australia) are comparable to mid to upper-mid range desktops in terms of pricing. 90% of the serious reliability problems I've seen are on hardware that people have taken the really cheap route on. Most people seem to think that Asterisk is a really cheap PBX. While Asterisk is certainly /cheaper/ than just about all comparable PBXs, if it's to be done properly and reliably it's certainly not dirt cheap. Evaluating Asterisk certainly can be since if it's only a test system, you can scrounge up some older hardware. The real mistake is in putting the older hardware into full production. Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 06:21:15PM +1100, Rob Hillis wrote: > >> I would suspect that your hardware is the cause of your problems. >> Running a production PBX system on a discarded desktop system is a >> /really/ bad idea. >> >> I would seriously consider an upgrade to your hardware. >> > > Well, there is not enough data to suggest that. Before blaming Ira for > being such a cheap fellow (after all, he didn't buy one of those IBM big > iorns to run Asterisk on) we should also consider that the upgrade to > 1.4 probably also involved an upgrade of Zaptel, which *is* kernel > space. > > And maybe there was soemthing completely different. Which is why I asked > for a trace, to give some sort of direction to see where the problem > comes from. > >
_______________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
