On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 10:18:46PM -0500, Tilghman Lesher wrote: > On Sunday 31 May 2009 13:36:26 Philipp Kempgen wrote: > > Tzafrir Cohen schrieb: > > > How useful are the equivalent safe_asterisk scripts? > > > > There's no real reason to treat asterisk differently but then again > > I haven't seen Apache or MySQL crash very often but I did see some > > versions of Asterisk crash more often than it was acceptable. > > (Seems to be better now.) > > Interesting, since safe_asterisk is modeled directly after safe_mysqld.
Modeled after, maybe. In practice safe_asterisk doesn't work well. It's just too easy for the underlying Asterisk to get in a respawn loop. It's just too easy for two safe_asterisk-s to run along-side and have undesired effects. If you want something to watch over Asterisk: that's what runit and such are for. For me safe_asterisk adds a whole new level of complicates without much gain. -- Tzafrir Cohen icq#16849755 jabber:tzafrir.co...@xorcom.com +972-50-7952406 mailto:tzafrir.co...@xorcom.com http://www.xorcom.com iax:gu...@local.xorcom.com/tzafrir _______________________________________________ -- 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