On 28 May 2003, Steven Critchfield waxed:
8<'s
> While I'm on the postgres bandwagon for now, I wouldn't want it in the
> middle of a phone system doing heavy call loads either. Postgres also
> has some downsides too. As I understand it, postgres doesn't understand
> prepared statements, or at le
>
> was that mysql 3.23.x or 4.0.x ?
> michael
I did most of my mysql work some time ago with 3.x. I have, however,
installed mysql 4.0.12 since I'm working on a CASE tool which needs to
support both mysql and postgresql. I'll be the first to admit that
mysql has probably improved (a lot?) sin
Steven Critchfield wrote:
Don't use Mysql. if you ever have had to deal with it in a production
environment that works it over, you will know that as it reaches it's
limits, it starts a death spiral that is very difficult to recover from.
For our software on a dual P3 866 with a gig of ram, the li
was that mysql 3.23.x or 4.0.x ?
michael
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 28.05.2003 at 16:18 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> My example of heavy load where mysql could not even begin to handle the
>> situation was a project with real time stock market data streamed in as
>> bids and of
> My example of heavy load where mysql could not even begin to handle the
> situation was a project with real time stock market data streamed in as
> bids and offers and trades happened, statistics computed from that in real
> time, database kept in sync live, and charts and graphs plotted in re
> Don't use Mysql. if you ever have had to deal with it in a production
> environment that works it over, you will know that as it reaches it's
> limits, it starts a death spiral that is very difficult to recover from.
> For our software on a dual P3 866 with a gig of ram, the limit was
> around 1.
Just my 2 cent here...
I noticed that mysql need to be fine tuned for the work it must
do. We have a mysql server that's a backend for a ecommerce
website, a backend for user tracking, backed for an ads engine,
backend for snort, backend for other 6 sites running with
phpnuke. 2 of these sites get
On Wed, 2003-05-28 at 15:09, Jon Pounder wrote:
> I'll save my typing fingers somewhat on this one - you are doing great
> arguing about all the crappiness of mysql and actually backing it up with
> real examples. It is nice to see that for a change in comparison to all the
> mysql lovers that l
I'll save my typing fingers somewhat on this one - you are doing great
arguing about all the crappiness of mysql and actually backing it up with
real examples. It is nice to see that for a change in comparison to all the
mysql lovers that love it just "because" but have no basis to compare it to
On Wed, 2003-05-28 at 14:45, Joe Antkowiak wrote:
> >Also, NFS mounting of the voicemail for such a large install is probably
> >not the best idea. Unless you really need it available to another
> >machine, you _may_ want to rethink this idea. NFS can be a major speed
> >hit on a machine, especiall
On Wed, 2003-05-28 at 14:36, Ron Gage wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 May 2003 02:30 pm, Steven Critchfield wrote:
> > On Wed, 2003-05-28 at 11:02, Joe Antkowiak wrote:
> > > 1. Voicemail, and the voicemail itself will be stored on another box,
> > > NFS mounted, or I might use mysql. There will be a li
>Also, NFS mounting of the voicemail for such a large install is probably
>not the best idea. Unless you really need it available to another
>machine, you _may_ want to rethink this idea. NFS can be a major speed
>hit on a machine, especially if the client is overworked. Also if you
>are planning o
On Wed, 2003-05-28 at 14:11, Ryan Butler wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-05-28 at 13:30, Steven Critchfield wrote:
>
> > Don't use Mysql. if you ever have had to deal with it in a production
> > environment that works it over, you will know that as it reaches it's
> > limits, it starts a death spiral that i
On Wednesday 28 May 2003 02:30 pm, Steven Critchfield wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-05-28 at 11:02, Joe Antkowiak wrote:
> > 1. Voicemail, and the voicemail itself will be stored on another box,
> > NFS mounted, or I might use mysql. There will be a little bit of call
> > routing via iax to a separate *
I've run tests with MySQL. It is very fast unless you have
many processes that need to access it at once and then
the weak point is it's locking method which let's only
one process in at a time So you run into a wall as the
size/complexity of your project grows past some point.
But for a PBX all
On Wed, 2003-05-28 at 14:30, Steven Critchfield wrote:
> Don't use Mysql. if you ever have had to deal with it in a production
> environment that works it over, you will know that as it reaches it's
> limits, it starts a death spiral that is very difficult to recover from.
> For our software on a
On Wed, 2003-05-28 at 13:30, Steven Critchfield wrote:
> Don't use Mysql. if you ever have had to deal with it in a production
> environment that works it over, you will know that as it reaches it's
> limits, it starts a death spiral that is very difficult to recover from.
> For our software on a
very much.
>
> -Joe
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven
> Critchfield
> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 6:09 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] 2 4-port T1 cards
>
> On Tue, 20
On Wed, 2003-05-28 at 11:02, Joe Antkowiak wrote:
> 1. Voicemail, and the voicemail itself will be stored on another box, NFS
> mounted, or I might use mysql. There will be a little bit of call routing
> via iax to a separate * box with a channel bank on it.
>
> 2. I don't disagree with you, th
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 12:38 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] 2 4-port T1 cards
> 3. Dual MB won't help much in pure telephony.
> In pure telephony, you are basically dealing with serial line
> IO. A T1 is little more than I long distance
ery much.
-Joe
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven
Critchfield
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 6:09 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] 2 4-port T1 cards
On Tue, 2003-05-27 at 16:05, Joe Antkowiak wrote:
> Are there any known i
e Live/Audilogy take
most of the load.)
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Spencer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 2:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] 2 4-port T1 cards
> > 3. Dual MB won't help much in pure tel
> 3. Dual MB won't help much in pure telephony.
> In pure telephony, you are basically dealing with serial line
> IO. A T1 is little more than I long distance serial line. 8 T1s
> is just 11.7megs per second each way, or 23.4 megs in and out.
> Not too much for a good machin
On Tue, 2003-05-27 at 16:05, Joe Antkowiak wrote:
> Are there any known issues with putting 2 4-port T1 cards in a single box
> and having all ports and all channels in use at the same time? Planning on
> 4 of these boxes, dual AMD cpu MB from MSI, 512m, redhat 9, agp video, on
> board NICs, seria
2(cards)*4(ports)*24(channel) = 192 channels *4 boxes= 768 calls ...
you want to do a call center with * ?
i would put more ram into the servers ..
other than that .. go for it ;)
michael
*** REPLY SEPARATOR ***
On 27.05.2003 at 17:05 Joe Antkowiak wrote:
>Are there any known i
25 matches
Mail list logo
