On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Steve Totaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Jay R. Ashworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 02:14:27PM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote: > > > There are much better solutions than doing a RAM drive. While it may > > > be stable (not in my experience, I advise using different servers for > > > different tasks (with redundancy obviously). A phone switch should be > > > just that, a recording server should also be just that (in demanding > > > environments). > > > > That would be fine, if Asterisk was capable of buffering recording > > writes, but I'm told it's not; the I/O involved in getting that > > recording data off the box in real time is probably worse than that of > > putting it onto disk -- disks are usually higher bandwidth channels > > than network adapters. > > > > For permanent storage, certainly, the recordings should be moved to > > another box, and that's how we do it here. > > > > Cheers, > > -- jr '44 byte chunks. Is someone an ATM fan?' a > > -- > > Jay R. Ashworth Baylink [EMAIL > PROTECTED] > > Designer The Things I Think RFC > 2100 > > Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com > '87 e24 > > St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 > 1274 > > > > Those who cast the vote decide nothing. > > Those who count the vote decide everything. > > -- (Joseph Stalin) > > > > Well in the real world, your hypothesis has been proven wrong. > > Thanks, > Steve Totaro >
To correct my previous statement. Who said anything about Asterisk doing the recording function at all? Certainly not me. My recording servers sometimes run Windows but usually Linux just to keep everything in the "Phone Rack" on the same OS. Thanks, Steve Totaro _______________________________________________ -- 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