e...@nortel.com]
> Sent: 03 September 2009 13:46
> To: Simon Stockdale
> Cc: 'Tony Graziano'; sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
> Subject: Re: [sipx-users] VMWare
>
> On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 11:09 +0100, Simon Stockdale wrote:
>> Thanks for the input Tony - I'll set up
On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 14:20 -0400, Dan Mongrain wrote:
> Regarding number (2), instead of having different ports to demultiplex
> incoming traffic, couldn't sipXecs utilize a "virtual name space"
> mechanism (I do not know if there is a correct term for this, but it is
> similar to Apache's virt
Regarding number (2), instead of having different ports to demultiplex
incoming traffic, couldn't sipXecs utilize a "virtual name space"
mechanism (I do not know if there is a correct term for this, but it is
similar to Apache's virtual web service which looks at the network name
of the URL to
On Sat, 2009-09-05 at 08:18 -0400, Dale Worley wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 23:16 -0400, John Buswell wrote:
> > You can achieve (1) by using separate chroot environments (one per
> > instance). I set this up about a year ago for a client, had no
> > problems with it.
>
> When using chroot,
I didn't try that. I ran full duplicate environments within each
chroot. I do recall having to modify some scripts and config to force
binding to separate IP addresses per instance.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 5, 2009, at 8:18, "Dale Worley" wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 23:16 -0400, John B
On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 23:16 -0400, John Buswell wrote:
> You can achieve (1) by using separate chroot environments (one per
> instance). I set this up about a year ago for a client, had no
> problems with it.
When using chroot, can you avoid installing sipXecs separately into each
environment?
Dale,
You can achieve (1) by using separate chroot environments (one per
instance). I set this up about a year ago for a client, had no
problems with it.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 4, 2009, at 23:07, "Dale Worley" wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 14:12 +0100, Simon Stockdale wrote:
>> One of
On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 14:12 +0100, Simon Stockdale wrote:
> One of our key areas of expertise is performance testing
Your company may have the skills to diagnose the problems that sipXecs
has with VM systems, and I encourage you to pursue it.
In regard to "multiple company" deployments, perhaps i
users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
[mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Keith
Gearty
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 5:22 AM
To: Simon Stockdale
Cc: sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
Subject: Re: [sipx-users] VMWare
Simon Stockdale wrote:
>The reason behind pursuing the VMWare route is
9 10:22
To: Simon Stockdale
Cc: 'Tony Graziano'; sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
Subject: Re: [sipx-users] VMWare
Simon Stockdale wrote:
>The reason behind pursuing the VMWare route is simply that I would like to
>deploy sipx to support more than one customer. Our options at present
g
Subject: Re: [sipx-users] VMWare
Simon Stockdale wrote:
>The reason behind pursuing the VMWare route is simply that I would like to
>deploy sipx to support more than one customer. Our options at present are
>either modify sipxconfig code to provide some grouping of users to specific
Simon Stockdale wrote:
>The reason behind pursuing the VMWare route is simply that I would like to
>deploy sipx to support more than one customer. Our options at present are
>either modify sipxconfig code to provide some grouping of users to specific
>companies or deploy multiple instances of SIPX
Just thinking out loud... I don't have any hands on production time with sipx
yet so my input is really just to cover things that some might be thinking as
well.
What is the mechanism for load balancing across additional servers?
While there may be timing issues to resolve, assuming that one c
On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 14:12 +0100, Simon Stockdale wrote:
> If
> we consider TDM rates of 64Kbps then we need to deal with one octet sample
> every 125ms - this is an age in modern computing terms.
SIP phones typically send an RTP packet every 20ms - too much
variability in the generation and ar
gt; multiple media apps and then virtualize the other parts.
>
> Simon
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Lawrence [mailto:scott.lawre...@nortel.com]
> Sent: 03 September 2009 13:46
> To: Simon Stockdale
> Cc: 'Tony Graziano'; sipx-users@list.sipfoun
I toyed around with using ESX for asterisk which is more hardware intensive
than sipx appears to be.
I wanted the benefits of using a guest because of how nice it is to backup and
have fail over to another server since I use centralized storage. I figured
even if I have less users per servers, r
From: Scott Lawrence [mailto:scott.lawre...@nortel.com]
Sent: 03 September 2009 13:46
To: Simon Stockdale
Cc: 'Tony Graziano'; sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
Subject: Re: [sipx-users] VMWare
On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 11:09 +0100, Simon Stockdale wrote:
> Thanks for the input Tony - I'l
-users@list.sipfoundry.org
> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 10:43:55 +0100
> Subject: [sipx-users] VMWare
>
>
> I know this topic has been discussed before but I want to try and get to the
> bottom of the issues that people have been facing.
>
> I’ve just fired up a new VM host (Dell 2950
On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 11:09 +0100, Simon Stockdale wrote:
> Thanks for the input Tony - I'll set up a soak test to see what happens.
>
> The reason behind pursuing the VMWare route is simply that I would like to
> deploy sipx to support more than one customer. Our options at present are
> either
ginal Message-
From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
[mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Simon
Stockdale
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 6:09 AM
To: 'Tony Graziano'; sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
Subject: Re: [sipx-users] VMWare
Thanks for the input
ssage-
From: Tony Graziano [mailto:tgrazi...@myitdepartment.net]
Sent: 03 September 2009 10:57
To: simon.stockd...@barrastone.com; sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
Subject: Re: [sipx-users] VMWare
after the system has been up several days, you will find the normal
behavior of sipx consumes
after the system has been up several days, you will find the normal
behavior of sipx consumes more real memory. when the VM function starts
being used by several users at once in a production environment things
might be quite different.
There are 3 things in a virtual environment that affect sipx:
I know this topic has been discussed before but I want to try and get to the
bottom of the issues that people have been facing.
I’ve just fired up a new VM host (Dell 2950 V3, 2x Quad 2.66GHz chips and 16GB
memory, 4x300GB SAS 15k disks RAID5) and installed Microsoft Small Business
Server in
23 matches
Mail list logo
