Going on 2 days now, without incident. 1.2.26 is by far the best update
I've done. Usually I end up rolling back within a few hours because of
show-stopping bugs.
On Jan 21, 2008 3:11 PM, Matt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have now been running 1.2.26 for the better part of today, without
>
We have now been running 1.2.26 for the better part of today, without
incident. This makes me very happy. We will continue to monitor our PBX
to see how things go over the next few days.
On Jan 18, 2008 9:24 AM, Steve Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1.2.26 Works a treat here on several 10
Yes.. thanks. I don't want to start a flame war on this, but just my 2
cents.. to date, I've had to lag behind the releases in order to get
something stable.
On Jan 18, 2008 2:53 PM, Michiel van Baak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 15:00, Thu 17 Jan 08, Matt wrote:
> > What are people's thought
On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 12:23:06AM +0100, Michiel van Baak wrote:
> On 15:10, Sun 20 Jan 08, Ira wrote:
> > At 02:59 PM 1/20/2008, you wrote:
> > >I was getting kernel panics from HPEC, but it was because I was using
> > >the i386 binary and not the i686 one.
> > >
> > >I called Digium, they logged
At 03:23 PM 1/20/2008, you wrote:
>To make sure what you are running issue an 'uname -a'
>The Celeron is i686.
It says some stuff followed by: i686 i686 i386
Ira
___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
asterisk-user
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ira wrote:
> At 02:59 PM 1/20/2008, you wrote:
>> I was getting kernel panics from HPEC, but it was because I was using
>> the i386 binary and not the i686 one.
>>
>> I called Digium, they logged in, sorted it out, and everything works
>> fine now.
>
On 15:10, Sun 20 Jan 08, Ira wrote:
> At 02:59 PM 1/20/2008, you wrote:
> >I was getting kernel panics from HPEC, but it was because I was using
> >the i386 binary and not the i686 one.
> >
> >I called Digium, they logged in, sorted it out, and everything works
> >fine now.
>
> I wonder if that's
At 02:59 PM 1/20/2008, you wrote:
>I was getting kernel panics from HPEC, but it was because I was using
>the i386 binary and not the i686 one.
>
>I called Digium, they logged in, sorted it out, and everything works
>fine now.
I wonder if that's my problem? I have a 1ghz Celeron and I think I'm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
William Stillwell (Ki4swy) wrote:
> I have been running 1.4.17 since its release, and no kernal panics.
>
> Before that I was running 1.4.13 without any kernal panics.
I was getting kernel panics from HPEC, but it was because I was using
the i386 b
At 11:33 PM 1/19/2008, you wrote:
>PC's age and when they age, things tend to go wrong, particularly
>when you upgrade software. Unusual crashes are usually the first
>sign that something is going wrong.
Well, my experience is they work until they die and that's usually
the PS or HD. In that m
I have been running 1.4.17 since its release, and no kernal panics.
Before that I was running 1.4.13 without any kernal panics.
System Specs:
4 Core Xeon 5110 @ 1.6Ghz (two dual proc chips)
8 Gb Ram
400GB Raid 5 SAS Array
-- Original Message --
From:
On Sun, 2008-01-20 at 13:26 +1100, Rob Hillis wrote:
> I wasn't intending to blame Ira for his own problems - I was intending
> to point out that running a production system on discarded hardware is
> a really bad idea.
>
Let me jump in on that.
Some other posters mention (un-)aging of systems.
Thomas Kenyon wrote:
> Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
>
>> Well, there is not enough data to suggest that. Before blaming Ira for
>> being such a cheap fellow (after all, he didn't buy one of those IBM big
>> iorns to run Asterisk on) we should also consider that the upgrade to
>> 1.4 probably also involv
Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
>
> Well, there is not enough data to suggest that. Before blaming Ira for
> being such a cheap fellow (after all, he didn't buy one of those IBM big
> iorns to run Asterisk on) we should also consider that the upgrade to
> 1.4 probably also involved an upgrade of Zaptel, whic
On Jan 19, 2008 9:26 PM, Rob Hillis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wasn't intending to blame Ira for his own problems - I was intending to
> point out that running a production system on discarded hardware is a really
> bad idea.
>
> I wasn't even suggesting a mammoth server - as you may or may n
Not the first time I've seen something like this happen. If you read
what I said, I wasn't saying that this /was/ what was happening with his
hardware, merely that it's the first sign.
Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 06:33:31PM +1100, Rob Hillis wrote:
>
>> PC's age and when the
Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 06:33:31PM +1100, Rob Hillis wrote:
>> PC's age and when they age, things tend to go wrong, particularly when
>> you upgrade software. Unusual crashes are usually the first sign that
>> something is going wrong.
>
> And suddenly the same PC has "unag
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 06:33:31PM +1100, Rob Hillis wrote:
> PC's age and when they age, things tend to go wrong, particularly when
> you upgrade software. Unusual crashes are usually the first sign that
> something is going wrong.
And suddenly the same PC has "unaged" when reverting to 1.2?
Ag
PC's age and when they age, things tend to go wrong, particularly when
you upgrade software. Unusual crashes are usually the first sign that
something is going wrong.
To me, it sounds like you've put the money into many of the right areas
- segregating your voice and data networks, going with dec
At 04:44 AM 1/19/2008, you wrote:
Well, it's been very reliable. It's been running 24/7 for 2 years and
the only problems have been my putting bugs in the dial plan,
problems with SIP providers going broke and trying 1.4. So how
exactly would more expensive hardware have improved my reliabilit
I wasn't intending to blame Ira for his own problems - I was intending
to point out that running a production system on discarded hardware is a
really bad idea.
I wasn't even suggesting a mammoth server - as you may or may not have
seen in my subsequent reply to him, the place I work for sells fai
Tzafrir Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 12:20:56PM -0800, Ira wrote:
> Kernel panics can be caused by buggy kernel code and / or bad hardware.
>
> Buggy userspace should not (by definition) be able to cause them. If
> userspace can, it's a kernel bug.
This is only tru
On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 06:21:15PM +1100, Rob Hillis wrote:
> I would suspect that your hardware is the cause of your problems.
> Running a production PBX system on a discarded desktop system is a
> /really/ bad idea.
>
> I would seriously consider an upgrade to your hardware.
Well, there is not
What you run it on is very much a function of how reliable you want the
system to be. The better the hardware, the more reliable it will be.
If you're running in a business environment, then I wouldn't recommend
anything less than server grade - even if it's low end server grade.
The company
At 03:35 PM 1/18/2008, you wrote:
>I'm running 1.4 in production on the following two systems:
>
>Tyan GT20 AMD 939 dual core. openSuSE x86_64 10.1
>Celeron 2.4ghz RHEL 4... cheap server from ThePlanet from what I
>recall they use cheap cheap cheap consumer grade stuff.
>
>Not a single crash not a
At 02:20 PM 1/18/2008, you wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 12:20:56PM -0800, Ira wrote:
> > At 11:53 AM 1/18/2008, you wrote:
> >
> > Although for some of us, or at least me, no version of 1.4 has run
> > for more than 72 hours before generating a kernel panic. I've tried
> > about 6 versions, the
At 11:21 PM 1/18/2008, you wrote:
I would suspect that your hardware is the cause of your
problems. Running a production PBX system on a discarded desktop
system is a really bad idea.
I would seriously consider an upgrade to your hardware.
Except that it's been running 1.2 for 2 years with
I would suspect that your hardware is the cause of your problems.
Running a production PBX system on a discarded desktop system is a
/really/ bad idea.
I would seriously consider an upgrade to your hardware.
Ira wrote:
> At 12:34 PM 1/18/2008, you wrote:
>
>
>>> Although for some of us, or a
I'm running 1.4 in production on the following two systems:
Tyan GT20 AMD 939 dual core. openSuSE x86_64 10.1
Celeron 2.4ghz RHEL 4... cheap server from ThePlanet from what I
recall they use cheap cheap cheap consumer grade stuff.
Not a single crash not a single issue.
I will admit we run magnit
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 12:20:56PM -0800, Ira wrote:
> At 11:53 AM 1/18/2008, you wrote:
>
> >Apart from the fact asterisk 1.2 is in security maintenance
> >mode only and wont get any other bugfixes it will be ok.
> >Please consider using 1.4 as it's the official latest stable
> >version.
>
> Alt
At 12:34 PM 1/18/2008, you wrote:
> > Although for some of us, or at least me, no version of 1.4 has run
> > for more than 72 hours before generating a kernel panic. I've tried
> > about 6 versions, the early ones were good for about 10 minutes, the
> > latest one lasted 3 days. Sadly I'm still st
On 14:34, Fri 18 Jan 08, Ryan Burke wrote:
>
>
> > At 11:53 AM 1/18/2008, you wrote:
> >
> >>Apart from the fact asterisk 1.2 is in security maintenance
> >>mode only and wont get any other bugfixes it will be ok.
> >>Please consider using 1.4 as it's the official latest stable
> >>version.
> >
>
> At 11:53 AM 1/18/2008, you wrote:
>
>>Apart from the fact asterisk 1.2 is in security maintenance
>>mode only and wont get any other bugfixes it will be ok.
>>Please consider using 1.4 as it's the official latest stable
>>version.
>
> Although for some of us, or at least me, no version of 1.4 h
At 11:53 AM 1/18/2008, you wrote:
>Apart from the fact asterisk 1.2 is in security maintenance
>mode only and wont get any other bugfixes it will be ok.
>Please consider using 1.4 as it's the official latest stable
>version.
Although for some of us, or at least me, no version of 1.4 has run
for
On 15:00, Thu 17 Jan 08, Matt wrote:
> What are people's thoughts on asterisk 1.2.26? Any show stopping bugs?
Apart from the fact asterisk 1.2 is in security maintenance
mode only and wont get any other bugfixes it will be ok.
Please consider using 1.4 as it's the official latest stable
version.
1.2.26 Works a treat here on several 10s of sites - We are just now starting
to look at 1.4.x as it seems that is is begining to stabilise.
Regards,
Steve
On 1/18/08, Matt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ** Bump **
>
> On Jan 17, 2008 3:00 PM, Matt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What are people'
** Bump **
On Jan 17, 2008 3:00 PM, Matt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What are people's thoughts on asterisk 1.2.26? Any show stopping bugs?
>
___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
asterisk-users mailing list
To UNS
What are people's thoughts on asterisk 1.2.26? Any show stopping bugs?
___
-- 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/listi
38 matches
Mail list logo
