Re: [Asterisk-Users] Compiling while * is running
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:21:49PM -0500, Stephen R. Besch wrote: > I just fetched today's cvs (1/30/04 11:10:31). Compiles/installs on my > test machine (ASUS A7V, 900 MHZ). However, If I try to compile on my > production machine (Elite K7S5A, 2.4GHz, 512MB) while * is running the > zaptel and asterisk compiles seg fault. I am assuming that they will > compile correctly if I bring down * and rmmod the zaptel driver. 0.7.1 > compiled and is now running. > > Is there a way to safely compile while * is running, so that I can > minimize down time of the server? Seg faulting compiles usually indicate a memory problem on the machine. Not lack of size, but bad memory, badly seated memory, etc... There's no reason asterisk running, or the drivers being loaded, should cause a compile to seg fault. On the other hand, the load of a compile could affect asterisk's performance... Rob -- Rob Fugina, Systems Guy [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.geekthing.com My firewall filters MS Office attachments. Yes, you're right. Unfortunately, I don't really care. ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Compiling while * is running
Rob Fugina wrote: [snip] >> Is there a way to safely compile while * is running, so that I can >> minimize down time of the server? > > Seg faulting compiles usually indicate a memory problem on the > machine. Not lack of size, but bad memory, badly seated memory, > etc... There's no reason asterisk running, or the drivers being > loaded, should > cause a compile to seg fault. > I don't agree. When first learning to program, my programs segfaulted all of the time, regarless of what machine I was on. Often, it was doing something stupid, like trying to replace a file that was in use, etc. On my machine, compiling took ~2 minutes, for all 3 pieces (zaptel, libpri, and asterisk). To get 5 9's (99.999% uptime), you need to be up for 13.9 days (check my math... it's been a while). My suggestion: if this downtime is unacceptable for your use, then get an identical machine, exactly alike in all ways, including library versions, hardware, etc, and compile it on that machine. Then copy the appropriate directories over to your production machine. Copy the production machine's directories to a safe location, stop * and zaptel, copy the new compiled things over, then restart * and zaptel. My guess is that 30 seconds should be plenty of time for this change. Thus, you only need to have been up for the last 3.47 days to have 99.999% uptime. Either that, or maybe if uptime is so critical, you should have a "hot spare" machine on-hand at all times. Anyway, just some thoughts. David Gomillion ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Compiling while * is running
On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 14:26, David Gomillion wrote: > Rob Fugina wrote: > > > Seg faulting compiles usually indicate a memory problem on the > > machine. Not lack of size, but bad memory, badly seated memory, > > etc... There's no reason asterisk running, or the drivers being > > loaded, should > > cause a compile to seg fault. > > > I don't agree. When first learning to program, my programs segfaulted all > of the time, regarless of what machine I was on. Often, it was doing > something stupid, like trying to replace a file that was in use, etc. I think you are mis-reading Rob. True that your own programs segfaulted but did you cause GCC to segfault? I think the original author said that GCC was itself segfaulting. GCC is so well used and tested that as Rob points out, the most common cause of a GCC segfault is hardware failure. > My suggestion: if this downtime is unacceptable for your use, then get an > identical machine, exactly alike in all ways, including library versions, > hardware, etc, and compile it on that machine. Then copy the appropriate > directories over to your production machine. Copy the production machine's > directories to a safe location, stop * and zaptel, copy the new compiled > things over, then restart * and zaptel. My guess is that 30 seconds should > be plenty of time for this change. Thus, you only need to have been up for > the last 3.47 days to have 99.999% uptime. This is a reason I argue for binary packages in production environments. You can build the packages (eg. debs or RPMs) on a development machine at your leisure and install the binary in minutes on the production machine. If your packages use proper dependencies you can also be much more sure you can reproduce your environment on new hardware (testing, qa, hot-spare, disaster recovery etc). -joe -- Innovation Software Group, LLC - http://www.innovationsw.com Custom Internet and Computer Solutions Linux, UNIX, Java Training ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Compiling while * is running
On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 13:26, David Gomillion wrote: > Rob Fugina wrote: > [snip] > >> Is there a way to safely compile while * is running, so that I can > >> minimize down time of the server? > > > > Seg faulting compiles usually indicate a memory problem on the > > machine. Not lack of size, but bad memory, badly seated memory, > > etc... There's no reason asterisk running, or the drivers being > > loaded, should > > cause a compile to seg fault. > > > I don't agree. When first learning to program, my programs segfaulted all > of the time, regarless of what machine I was on. Often, it was doing > something stupid, like trying to replace a file that was in use, etc. You apparently still have quite a bit more to learn. If you read the first line quoted, you will see that it is the compiling that is a problem. At no time during compile is the application you are compiling actually executed. Only gcc and it's helpers should be executed. Gcc is notorious for finding bad memory as it sprawls out over large sections and is sensitive to bits flipping around. If Asterisk was segfaulting, then there may be a question as to whether asterisk behaved differently under load(timing issues) or if it was still bad memory. > On my machine, compiling took ~2 minutes, for all 3 pieces (zaptel, libpri, > and asterisk). To get 5 9's (99.999% uptime), you need to be up for 13.9 > days (check my math... it's been a while). 5 9's is approximately 5 minutes over the course of a year. You couldn't do this 3 times a year and stay under that time so that is every 4+ months. Also that is assuming that the modules unload and load fine, and you aren't dealing with any problems getting sync back on any T1 lines. Really any reload of the modules will put you close to that 5 minutes per year. Luckily the low level drivers don't change often, and neither does libpri. So updating and restarting asterisk usually only incurs a sub 1 minute unavailable period. > My suggestion: if this downtime is unacceptable for your use, then get an > identical machine, exactly alike in all ways, including library versions, > hardware, etc, and compile it on that machine. Then copy the appropriate > directories over to your production machine. Copy the production machine's > directories to a safe location, stop * and zaptel, copy the new compiled > things over, then restart * and zaptel. My guess is that 30 seconds should > be plenty of time for this change. Thus, you only need to have been up for > the last 3.47 days to have 99.999% uptime. You should really look into bc -l before you speak. 30 seconds over 3.47 days is 99.989 percent uptime. For true 5 9's, you could only spare 2.998 seconds in 3.47 days. > Either that, or maybe if uptime is so critical, you should have a "hot > spare" machine on-hand at all times. Maybe you don't know how long it takes to sync a T1 line. That alone _can_ take almost a minute. Then the service can come up. If time is critical, it is probably not a good idea to just upgrade asterisk at a whim. This is why a previous post to dev by myself showed I'm still running releases from October and November of last year. Nothing in the newer releases are needed at this time, and therefore upgrading isn't important. -- Steven Critchfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Compiling while * is running
Steven Critchfield wrote: > On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 13:26, David Gomillion wrote: >> Rob Fugina wrote: >> [snip] Is there a way to safely compile while * is running, so that I can minimize down time of the server? >>> >>> Seg faulting compiles usually indicate a memory problem on the >>> machine. Not lack of size, but bad memory, badly seated memory, >>> etc... There's no reason asterisk running, or the drivers being >>> loaded, should >>> cause a compile to seg fault. >>> >> I don't agree. When first learning to program, my programs >> segfaulted all of the time, regarless of what machine I was on. >> Often, it was doing something stupid, like trying to replace a file >> that was in use, etc. > > You apparently still have quite a bit more to learn. Agreed. That's why I'm here. And yes, in my first year of Computer Science, I wrote crap that could even crash gcc. But that's another story, for another time. >> be up for 13.9 days (check my math... it's been a while). [snip] > You should really look into bc -l before you speak. 30 seconds over > 3.47 days is 99.989 percent uptime. For true 5 9's, you could only > spare > 2.998 seconds in 3.47 days. Again, you're right. I missed a 0, which I know is a BIG deal. I'm glad I have you to keep me honest :). And the difference between 2.998 and 3 is because the answer was really 3.47 22... but I figured 3.47 was close enough. Anyway, thanks for bringing my bad math to my attention. So, here's the question: has anyone worked on a phone system that DID have 5 9's? I'm not talking about core services that AT&T Long Lines owns, I mean customer-premises equipment. Is that an unrealistic goal? ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Compiling while * is running
> This is a reason I argue for binary packages in production > environments. You can build the packages (eg. debs or RPMs) on a > development machine at your leisure and install the binary in minutes on > the production machine. If your packages use proper dependencies you > can also be much more sure you can reproduce your environment on new > hardware (testing, qa, hot-spare, disaster recovery etc). +1, very clear and concise. I agree 100%, even though I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Slackware weenie. two systems are necessary, kept as identical as can possibly be -- it really helps the testing, and should anything go wrong, you can swap them. :-) Regards, Andrew ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [Asterisk-Users] Compiling while * is running
Yes, Nortel Meridian's can get 5 9's easily. They are very expensive, but we have one running at a government site in Indiana that has been up for 15 years without interruption. When you upgrade the 1 control unit, the other 1 is servicing all the requests. There is a brief period of time when you switch to the new one (like 4 seconds) where if you try to make a call, it won't go out, but any calls already in the system stay up... --JasonAnyway, thanks for bringing my bad math to my attention. So, here's thequestion: has anyone worked on a phone system that DID have 5 9's? I'm nottalking about core services that AT&T Long Lines owns, I meancustomer-premises equipment. Is that an unrealistic goal?___Asterisk-Users mailing list[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-usersTo UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Compiling while * is running
> Anyway, thanks for bringing my bad math to my attention. So, here's the > question: has anyone worked on a phone system that DID have 5 9's? I'm > not talking about core services that AT&T Long Lines owns, I mean > customer-premises equipment. Is that an unrealistic goal? I've never seen a phone system with five 9's reliability at CPE. That's why I refuse to promise it myself. Four nine's is easily attainable with regular PC-grade hardware. Five 9's is 315.576 seconds over a year, or five minutes. Four 9's is just shy of an hour of downtime a year. Our Meridian system isn't even meeting four 9's, but admittedly you can schedule a lot of the _truly_ down time to weekends / off-hours. Regards, Andrew ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Compiling while * is running
> Yes, Nortel Meridian's can get 5 9's easily. They are very expensive, > but we have one running at a government site in Indiana that has been up > for 15 years without interruption. When you upgrade the 1 control unit, > the other 1 is servicing all the requests. There is a brief period of > time when you switch to the new one (like 4 seconds) where if you try to > make a call, it won't go out, but any calls already in the system stay > up... Must be different from the Meridian system I have -- mind you it doesn't have hotswap controllers. :-) Mine's a mid-office one that's currently handling 40 phones and 12 trunk lines and it's more or less maxxed out. Regards, Andrew ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Compiling while * is running
On 30 Jan 2004, Joe Phillips wrote: > On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 14:26, David Gomillion wrote: > > Rob Fugina wrote: > > > > > Seg faulting compiles usually indicate a memory problem on the > > > machine. Not lack of size, but bad memory, badly seated memory, > > > etc... There's no reason asterisk running, or the drivers being > > > loaded, should > > > cause a compile to seg fault. > > > > > I don't agree. When first learning to program, my programs segfaulted all > > of the time, regarless of what machine I was on. Often, it was doing > > something stupid, like trying to replace a file that was in use, etc. > > I think you are mis-reading Rob. True that your own programs segfaulted > but did you cause GCC to segfault? I think the original author said > that GCC was itself segfaulting. GCC is so well used and tested that as > Rob points out, the most common cause of a GCC segfault is hardware > failure. GCC segfaults are most commonly caused by either bit errors in memory or cache problems with the CPU. 99% of them are due to faulty SIMM modules. (Just reinforcing your point). > > My suggestion: if this downtime is unacceptable for your use, then get an > > identical machine, exactly alike in all ways, including library versions, > > hardware, etc, and compile it on that machine. Then copy the appropriate > > directories over to your production machine. Copy the production machine's > > directories to a safe location, stop * and zaptel, copy the new compiled > > things over, then restart * and zaptel. My guess is that 30 seconds should > > be plenty of time for this change. Thus, you only need to have been up for > > the last 3.47 days to have 99.999% uptime. > > This is a reason I argue for binary packages in production > environments. You can build the packages (eg. debs or RPMs) on a > development machine at your leisure and install the binary in minutes on > the production machine. If your packages use proper dependencies you > can also be much more sure you can reproduce your environment on new > hardware (testing, qa, hot-spare, disaster recovery etc). Speaking of Binary packages, has anyone had the chance to test the Asterisk 0.7.1 RPMS that I built last weekend? -- Vice President of N2Net, a New Age Consulting Service, Inc. Company http://www.n2net.net Where everything clicks into place! KP-216-121-ST ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Compiling while * is running
On Friday 30 January 2004 17:57, Greg Boehnlein wrote: > Speaking of Binary packages, has anyone had the chance to test the > Asterisk 0.7.1 RPMS that I built last weekend? I'm using them on an up-to-date Fedora Core 1. So far so good. I don't have my Digium hardware yet, so I'm still just using softphones. Thanks for putting these together! Eric ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Compiling while * is running
While your problem is most likely bad RAM as other replies have suggested, there is another thing to keep in mind. Some implementations of dynamic module loading have problems if a loaded module is overwritten on the disk. What this means is that it is safest to stop Asterisk just before running "make install", else the running instance may mysteriously segfault at that point. /w -- /~\ The ASCII Ribbon Campaign \ /No HTML/RTF in email X No Word docs in email / \ Respect for open standards ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Compiling while * is running
Nope I do make install all the time with asterisk running without ONE problem. bkw On Sat, 31 Jan 2004, William Waites wrote: > While your problem is most likely bad RAM as other > replies have suggested, there is another thing to > keep in mind. > > Some implementations of dynamic module loading have > problems if a loaded module is overwritten on the > disk. What this means is that it is safest to stop > Asterisk just before running "make install", else > the running instance may mysteriously segfault at > that point. > > /w > -- > /~\ The ASCII Ribbon Campaign > \ /No HTML/RTF in email > X No Word docs in email > / \ Respect for open standards > ___ > Asterisk-Users mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: >http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Compiling while * is running
On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 07:43:46PM -0600, Brian West wrote: > Nope I do make install all the time with asterisk running without ONE > problem. As I said, this behaviour is specific to some implementations of dynamic loadable modules. It depends what OS (and in some cases what version of the OS) you are running. /w -- /~\ The ASCII Ribbon Campaign \ /No HTML/RTF in email X No Word docs in email / \ Respect for open standards ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Compiling while * is running
On Sat, 2004-01-31 at 20:02, William Waites wrote: > On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 07:43:46PM -0600, Brian West wrote: > > Nope I do make install all the time with asterisk running without ONE > > problem. > > As I said, this behaviour is specific to some implementations > of dynamic loadable modules. It depends what OS (and in some > cases what version of the OS) you are running. Dude maybe you need to learn more Unix programing and leave those toy OSes alone. Once a module is loaded, there should be no need to read the version on the file system again. Your problem would be loading new modules into a running version where there may have been an api change. -- Steven Critchfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Compiling while * is running
On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 04:21:23PM -0600, Steven Critchfield wrote: > > Dude maybe you need to learn more Unix programing and leave those toy > OSes alone. Once a module is loaded, there should be no need to read the > version on the file system again. Your problem would be loading new > modules into a running version where there may have been an api change. Steven, stop flame-baiting. HP-UX, for example, might be an ugly proprietary SysV monster, but it's far from a toy. There do exist broken dynamic loader implementations based on mmap(2). /w -- /~\ The ASCII Ribbon Campaign \ /No HTML/RTF in email X No Word docs in email / \ Respect for open standards ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Compiling while * is running
On Sun, 2004-02-01 at 16:38, William Waites wrote: > On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 04:21:23PM -0600, Steven Critchfield wrote: > > > > Dude maybe you need to learn more Unix programing and leave those toy > > OSes alone. Once a module is loaded, there should be no need to read the > > version on the file system again. Your problem would be loading new > > modules into a running version where there may have been an api change. > > Steven, stop flame-baiting. HP-UX, for example, might be an > ugly proprietary SysV monster, but it's far from a toy. > > There do exist broken dynamic loader implementations based > on mmap(2). This isn't intended as a flame bait. The original message should have been more clear that I thought you where experiencing crap in windows. How the hell did HP-UX get trusted status for military use if that is true? -- Steven Critchfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Compiling while * is running
On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 04:51:30PM -0600, Steven Critchfield wrote: > > This isn't intended as a flame bait. The original message should have > been more clear that I thought you where experiencing crap in windows. Heh. I haven't used windows since 1995 :) In fact, with HP-UX you cannot delete or rename or overwrite a shared library if it is in use, so you would *have* to stop the process before doing a "make install". For example, http://web.gat.com/comp/analysis/mdsplus/textfilebusy.html Talks about this phenomenon. > How the hell did HP-UX get trusted status for military use if that is > true? HP was/is a big military contractor long before HP-UX came into being, so perhaps that has something to do with it... /w -- /~\ The ASCII Ribbon Campaign \ /No HTML/RTF in email X No Word docs in email / \ Respect for open standards ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Compiling while * is running
It was actually a good question. When I learned Unix internals, the shared libs and executables where "busy" when loaded because of swap-in/swap-out requirements. Swap space was used to store the core memory for the apps, and the app itself was memory mapped when needed. That is why you couldn't overwrite it when it was in use. You had to rename it. I guess Linux has worked around this. Wish I had time to look and see how. :) William Waites wrote: On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 04:51:30PM -0600, Steven Critchfield wrote: This isn't intended as a flame bait. The original message should have been more clear that I thought you where experiencing crap in windows. Heh. I haven't used windows since 1995 :) In fact, with HP-UX you cannot delete or rename or overwrite a shared library if it is in use, so you would *have* to stop the process before doing a "make install". For example, http://web.gat.com/comp/analysis/mdsplus/textfilebusy.html Talks about this phenomenon. How the hell did HP-UX get trusted status for military use if that is true? HP was/is a big military contractor long before HP-UX came into being, so perhaps that has something to do with it... /w ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [Asterisk-Users] Compiling while * is running
On Mon, 2004-02-02 at 11:47, Clif Jones wrote: > It was actually a good question. When I learned Unix internals, the > shared libs and executables > where "busy" when loaded because of swap-in/swap-out requirements. Swap > space was > used to store the core memory for the apps, and the app itself was > memory mapped when > needed. That is why you couldn't overwrite it when it was in use. You > had to rename it. > I guess Linux has worked around this. Wish I had time to look and see > how. :) Probably more to the point is that the cost of memory and storage is such that the multiple copies isn't as much of a problem now. I could see that as being the case when memory was way too expensive to waste and hard drives required a DOD defense contract to purchase. -- Steven Critchfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
