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, serial ata raid. Any input would be appreciated. -Joe
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 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, serial ata raid. > >Any input would be appreciated. > >-Joe > >_______________________________________________ >Asterisk-Users mailing list >Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com >http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
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, serial ata raid.Newbie 101 (Not deragatory) 1. What are you doing with these ports? If you are routing calls from one side of the cards to the other, then you should have no problems with a 1gig P3 or so. But if you are doing more than routing, it will depend on what that something is, and what kind of overhead it is going to impose. 2. RH blows chunks. (Personal opinion) RH is known to make kitchen sink installs when you don't need them, and would be better off without most of the install base. 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 machine to do. Granted, if you are doing VoIP then you add another set of ins and outs with compression in the middle of it too. This is where the second CPU comes in handy. 4. AGP Video. Make sure not to use the frame buffer, it has been reported that the frame buffer generates large amounts of interupts and will degrade the performance. Here is for discussion as it is parts I don't know real well. Will the serial ATA buy you any flexibilty or lowered CPU load while accessing the disk? Don't take this question as shooting down the SATA, just don't know if there is real benefit in it yet. Also what chipset is the onboard nics? -- Steven Critchfield <critch@basesys.com>
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, they do throw in a lot, but redhat does have its advantages, IMHO. I've always been able to get things to work quickly with redhat, and there is that whole 24 hour support contract we have with them... 3. Mmm, ok. 4. Does the ati radeon 9000 have a frame buffer? That's the card I was going to use for all the * boxes. Thank you very much. -Joe -----Original Message----- From: asterisk-users-admin@lists.digium.com [mailto:asterisk-users-admin@lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Steven Critchfield Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 6:09 PM To: asterisk-users@lists.digium.com Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] 2 4-port T1 cards 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? Planningon> 4 of these boxes, dual AMD cpu MB from MSI, 512m, redhat 9, agp video, on > board NICs, serial ata raid.Newbie 101 (Not deragatory) 1. What are you doing with these ports? If you are routing calls from one side of the cards to the other, then you should have no problems with a 1gig P3 or so. But if you are doing more than routing, it will depend on what that something is, and what kind of overhead it is going to impose. 2. RH blows chunks. (Personal opinion) RH is known to make kitchen sink installs when you don't need them, and would be better off without most of the install base. 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 machine to do. Granted, if you are doing VoIP then you add another set of ins and outs with compression in the middle of it too. This is where the second CPU comes in handy. 4. AGP Video. Make sure not to use the frame buffer, it has been reported that the frame buffer generates large amounts of interupts and will degrade the performance. Here is for discussion as it is parts I don't know real well. Will the serial ATA buy you any flexibilty or lowered CPU load while accessing the disk? Don't take this question as shooting down the SATA, just don't know if there is real benefit in it yet. Also what chipset is the onboard nics? -- Steven Critchfield <critch@basesys.com> _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Cool, dual CPU it is =) I'll watch out for the frame buffers. Other than that, are there any other known issues with doing this? I will also be using dual-channel memory... Thanks! -----Original Message----- From: asterisk-users-admin@lists.digium.com [mailto:asterisk-users-admin@lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Mark Spencer Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 12:38 AM To: asterisk-users@lists.digium.com 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 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 machine to do. Granted, if you are doingVoIP> then you add another set of ins and outs with compression in the middle > of it too. This is where the second CPU comes in handy.Actually, with Zaptel, and the T400P especially, dual CPU makes a *big* difference. The T400P and E400P are slave-only designs, so the CPU spends a lot of time just cramming I/O down the PCI bus. Having a second CPU free to do work will definitely help.> 4. AGP Video. > Make sure not to use the frame buffer, it has been reported thatthe> frame buffer generates large amounts of interupts and will > degrade the performance.Don't underestimate this effect or think that a fast CPU will get around it. frame buffer is a definite no-no because it disables interrupts during screen redraws which take an enormous amount of time. If your call quality drops while you're playing quake on your PBX, don't come crying to us ;-) Mark _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>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 on running most all the channels to voicemail, then do you >think you are going to be able to have your NFS server keep high speed >writing going so as not to slow you asterisk machine down with it's 96 >channels running full tilt?Well, I have to have some centralized way of storing voicemail that all the * boxes can access. Its either network storage, SAN, or all the * boxes with t1 cards do IAX to a central * box that will do all the voicemail. I didn't think I'd have much of a problem getting the nfs box to keep up as long as its got enough horsepower (dual cpu, gig NIC, serial ata raid 5+1), and if I do, SAN is the next step... What do you think?
> 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 real > time for users on the site. Now that situation had more than its share of > inserts and updates, and a massive wad of historical data being kept just > to add to the fun....and I can even top that. I had an Intrusion Detection System proof of concept which logged to a Postgresql database. This database received 10-15 Million inserts a day and I was required to keep 90 day's worth of data. Most of the elects were done in batch during "slow" times at night. Some of the queries were expected to run in "near-real time." And might I also add that postgres did just fine...> Might I add for record that postgres did just fine.Mike Diehl.
> > was that mysql 3.23.x or 4.0.x ? > michaelI 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?) since then. I was simply relating my experience with both mysql and postgresql.> > > *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** > > On 28.05.2003 at 16:18 mdiehl@dominion.dyndns.org 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 offers and trades happened, statistics computed from that in > >real > >> time, database kept in sync live, and charts and graphs plotted in real > >> time for users on the site. Now that situation had more than its share > >of > >> inserts and updates, and a massive wad of historical data being kept > >just > >> to add to the fun. > > > >...and I can even top that. I had an Intrusion Detection System proof > >of concept which logged to a Postgresql database. This database > >received 10-15 Million inserts a day and I was required to keep 90 day's > >worth of data. Most of the elects were done in batch during "slow" times > >at > >night. Some of the queries were expected to run in "near-real time." > >And might I also add that postgres did just fine... > > > >> Might I add for record that postgres did just fine. > > > >Mike Diehl. > >_______________________________________________ > >Asterisk-Users mailing list > >Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com > >http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > > > > _______________________________________________ > Asterisk-Users mailing list > Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users >