Glad I was able to foster some good open discussion. Hopefully DIGIUM will take to heart some of the thoughts expressed here and end up with a BETTER SOLUTION for ALL.
Steve Totaro wrote: > Inline > > On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Tilghman Lesher > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Friday 16 May 2008 09:11:11 Steve Totaro wrote: >> >>> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Tilghman Lesher wrote: >>> >>>> On Friday 16 May 2008 06:59:15 Al Baker wrote: >>>> >>>>> this is one very weak area for *. There is NO ANSWER. >>>>> Now in fairness to *, the answer DOES depend on a # of critical >>>>> variables. How much CODEC to CODEC transcription is going on. >>>>> How many MEET Me conferences are going on. >>>>> >>>>> On the other hand, DIGIUM COULD, since they have a lab take 4-5 >>>>> 'standard' workloads >>>>> on two of the most common hardware boxes, say Dell & HP, and run x # of >>>>> transcriptions and >>>>> show the #'s. >>>>> Then x # of meet-me conferences. >>>>> >>>>> Face it the DB Industry did this 15-2- YEARS ago with TP benckmarks >>>>> >>>>> Rockwell and NORTEL can tell you this for every piece of hardware they >>>>> sell. >>>>> >>>>> It is a an area DIGIUM need to "man-up" in. >>>>> >>>> I'm not sure what your problem is with Digium. They sell several >>>> machines for which they publish very specific numbers as to how many >>>> users those machines will support (the Switchvox appliances). Note that >>>> these machines are configurable only from the web interface, and they do >>>> not allow you to install additional software. In other words, when they >>>> give you a specific machine, with a ton of those variables controlled, >>>> they can give you a number. >>>> >>>> Digium is under no obligation to give you numbers for your own hardware. >>>> That's up to you (and you get to control your own set of variables). >>>> >>> It seems any constructive criticism offered, you take as an attack >>> against Digium. That is not a good attitude. >>> >> I don't see how you figured out what I was thinking. Al said Digium doesn't >> publish any numbers, and I responded, saying that he was incorrect; Digium >> does indeed publish numbers (they're just not for his hardware). >> > > "I'm not sure what your problem is with Digium." Proof, period. > > >>> While under no obligation, it certainly would help sales. >>> >> Whose sales? If you're talking about the appliances, then yes, I'm sure the >> publication of those numbers help with sales. If you mean your own sales, >> well, you're right, Digium's numbers probably don't help your sales. You >> could certainly put together a lab and do your own testing. Why don't you do >> that? >> > > Sales in general. You don't need to benchmark everything, just a few > basic benchmarks, maybe gear it to your hardware and SIP as a gateway, > then build from there. Most companies do this. > > I have my own lab and bechmarks but they are for Sangoma hardware and > very specific servers and all geared to callcenter apps. > > >>> I take "Appliance Numbers" with a grain of salt. The sales model of >>> SwitchVox (and most others) is based on number of ports (SoHO, SMB, >>> Enterprise) not maximum number of ports that the appliance could >>> actually handle if not artificially constrained. >>> >> Consider the maximum number of ports that Switchvox will enable on a single >> machine and consider that the maximum number that they're willing to support >> comfortably without running into some hard limit. You never want to run into >> a hard limit in the field anyway. >> > > High powered ervers are cheap and so are appliances once you settle on > an enclosure and guts and start cranking out boxes. Hard limit.... > common. > > >>> This is in the style of legacy proprietary systems and anther reason >>> why the sale cycle goes a little tougher than a custom job. Asterisk >>> with FreePBX (and maybe Druid) eliminate these artificial constraints >>> on usage. >>> >> Yes, but the point of those constraints is to permit support a manageable >> job. Yes, you could probably add 2 or 3 or 10 or 15 to the number of calls >> that a particular machine could handle, but from a support perspective, it >> doesn't matter how many the machine could theoretically handle, it matters >> how many it could handle in the particular installation in a supportable >> configuration (those are all those pesky variables we've been talking about). >> > > Maybe that is what the official corporate answer is or, you were > brainwashed to believe, but I tend to think it is to sell SMB and > Enterprise software and support. It is all about money. I didn't > fall off the turnip truck yesterday. > > >>> I have load averages and CPU usage stats in my mind for all the >>> various usages and hardware through experience in my mind. Of course >>> they are only valuable to the exact setup I was doing. >>> >> Precisely. >> >> -- >> Tilghman >> >> _______________________________________________ >> -- 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 >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > -- 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 > > > _______________________________________________ -- 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