#x27;"
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 4:52 PM
Subject: RE: [Asterisk-biz] Large Asterisk Setup (~500 Concurrent
Calls+Scalability)
I'm sure that most of the Asterisk users in the list will not agree
we me, but in such large implementations, I prefeer to use a quite
different
ap
Boehlke
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 1:21 PM
To: 'Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion'
Subject: RE: [Asterisk-biz] Large Asterisk Setup (~500
Concurrent Calls+Scalability)
Who is building motherboards with a dedicated bus for each PCI slot?
-Original Message-
Fr
il 20, 2005 3:37 PM
> To: Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion
> Subject: Re: [Asterisk-biz] Large Asterisk Setup (~500
> Concurrent Calls
> +Scalability)
>
>
> On Apr 20, 2005, at 4:20 PM, Matt Roth wrote:
>
> > Allow me to clarify that statement.
] Large Asterisk Setup (~500 Concurrent Calls
+Scalability)
On Apr 20, 2005, at 4:20 PM, Matt Roth wrote:
> Allow me to clarify that statement. The traffic on the PCI bus to the
> CPU is the bottleneck. We have sent emails to Digium regarding
> multiple quad-span cards in a single
-Oriented Asterisk Discussion
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-biz] Large Asterisk Setup (~500 Concurrent Calls
+Scalability)
On Apr 20, 2005, at 4:20 PM, Matt Roth wrote:
> Allow me to clarify that statement. The traffic on the PCI bus to the
> CPU is the bottleneck. We have sent emails to Digium reg
If you need a stable VoIP system I can recommend you just like LTenorio
to use external VoIP gateways. We are using VoIP equipment (E1 gateways)
from Audiocodes - the hardware is VERY stable and the prices are much
better then Cisco.
If I was you I would make it on this way.
Lubo
-
AppR
Can you give us an example?
How much do they cost?
MATT---
-Original Message-
From: Brian West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 6:37 PM
To: Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-biz] Large Asterisk Setup (~500 Concurrent
On Apr 20, 2005, at 4:20 PM, Matt Roth wrote:
Allow me to clarify that statement. The traffic on the PCI bus to the
CPU is the bottleneck. We have sent emails to Digium regarding
multiple quad-span cards in a single PC-class machine and they
recommended against it for this reason.
Not if you
On 4/20/05, Leandro Tenorio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm sure that most of the Asterisk users in the list will not agree
> we me, but in such large implementations, I prefeer to use a quite different
> approach.
>In this kind of implementations I prefeer to use any TDM-VoIP
> gat
Allow me to clarify that statement. The traffic on the PCI bus to the
CPU is the bottleneck. We have sent emails to Digium regarding multiple
quad-span cards in a single PC-class machine and they recommended
against it for this reason.
From the Digium emails:
- I'd use two machines, with two
I'm sure that most of the Asterisk users in the list will not agree
we me, but in such large implementations, I prefeer to use a quite different
approach.
In this kind of implementations I prefeer to use any TDM-VoIP
gateway (Quintum / Cisco / etc, there are a lot of them, even used
Originally, we planned to implement this design by purchasing one
multi-processor machine and putting multiple quad-span T1 cards
(Wildcard TE4xxPs) into it. Through research, it was determined that
the PCI bus couldn't handle the digital signal processing (DSP) from
more than one quad-span card.
12 matches
Mail list logo
