asterisk users - Mar 2005 - zaptel PRI drivers

I am not flaming you even if it may seem so below.

On Sun, 2005-03-20 at 23:12 -0700, Tom wrote:
> I have a quick question.
> I know that running X on an asterisk server is not officially
"supported",
> however, I've never had any trouble with it until now (8 months, using
wctdm
> cards with fxo and fxs ports, IAX trunks, SIP phones, everything except a
PRI
> card).  Now I just installed my first asterisk box that terminates a PRI,
and
> bam, HDLC errors up the wazoo if X is running, if its not, everything is
fine,
> I assume this is because the timing parameters for the PRI are so much more
> strick.
IT isn't just not "supported", as you see, it just doesn't
work
reliably. Stop doing that.
> I don't mind if X is a little less responsive (even alot less
responsive), but I
> would really like to be able to run X on a server with a PRI.  Is there any
way
> to reduce X11's priority so that it doesn't interfere with the
zaptel driver
> for the PRI... I've tried renicing X as far down as I can and renicing
Asterisk
> up as far as I can, however I fear this won't ever fix the problem
since I
> think the actual kernel module that is running the pri card needs to get
higher
> priority (ie, the kernel itself needs higher priority).  Is there any way
to do
> this?  Am I correct in my analysis?  I really don't understand why on a
system
> that averages less than 3% CPU usage with X running, why it can't
handle the
> PRI.  I know for whatever reason X always gets a really high priority
(although
> top doesn't show X getting any special treatment its PR 15 NICE 0 by
default,
> lower than most other processes on the system).
Your problems our beyond the reach of nice. Bad graphics chips use lots
of CPU time when doing updates and therefore will cause the zaptel
drivers to miss interupts. Missed interupts will cause your PRI errors.
You can't fix broken graphics cards, nor fix the drivers.
> Another idea is that right now the system is only a single proc, but it is
dual
> proc capable.  Would this somehow help if we added the second proc?  My
> thinking is it won't because it's a kernel module we are dealing
with, and
> because of that I can't control the affinity of the driver (I was
thinking at
> one point put X11 on 1 proc and Asterisk on the second, but it's not
Asterisk
> that has the problem I don't think.)
I doubt it will make a difference. As I mention above, it ends up being
a kernel level problem and you probably can not get the drivers to
operate on different CPUs. It would just be better to spend the money on
a decent workstation and teach yourself how to manage the asterisk
machine from the separate workstation. 
> My final idea is that currently the system has an onboard 8mb ati graphic
card
> that leaves almost all actual graphics processing to the CPU, could adding
a
> better graphics card possibly help X use less cpu and not get in the way so
> much?
Not really, graphics sucks time away from a CPU no matter.
> Anyway, I know this isn't a supported setup, so if thats your answer
don't
> bother replying, I'm know this will be a kludge/hack to get working (if
I can
> get it working at all).  I'm just trying to do something that will be
> convienient for me and my users, there are other systems running on the
server
> that I don't want to manage through the CLI, and the users don't
know how to
> manage through the CLI, and there is no web management for them.
Ahh, so you are breaking many cardinal rules here. You have too much
stuff on your asterisk machine. You are begging for troubles. Move those
services off of the asterisk machine.
> Does anyone have success running X on an asterisk box that terminates a
PRI?
> If so what hardware (video card, cpu, ram, mobo, etc)?
> 
> Thanks as I know this setup isn't supported, and I'm probably
asking alot, don't
> think I'm just relying on the list for bizarre things, I've been
trying various
> ways of doing this for the last 3 weeks, I can successfully run a vnc
server on
> the box (without X running) and everything works, so for whatever reason it
is
> getting a lower priority or something.  I really need to run GDM though as
> managing VNC passwords/usernames/desktop settings is quite cumbersome and
if we
> can just get GDM running, we can use our ldap authentication server for
logins
> to this box (which is what we were doing previously when we didn't have
a PRI
> terminated on this box).
X and graphics drivers are big hogs on memory and CPU. VNC moves the
graphical portion over to the client machine. If you need GDM, why not
get X servers for your other machines and let GDM broadcast. This should
mean your X server run from whatever other machine should be able to be
configured to use the GDM and login. While the app will run on the
asterisk machine and be bad, the real CPU drain will not happen on the
asterisk machine. 

Just to recap, I am not flaming you no matter how it seemed in the
message.
-- 
Steven Critchfield <critch@basesys.com>

I have a quick question.
I know that running X on an asterisk server is not officially
"supported",
however, I've never had any trouble with it until now (8 months, using wctdm
cards with fxo and fxs ports, IAX trunks, SIP phones, everything except a PRI
card).  Now I just installed my first asterisk box that terminates a PRI, and
bam, HDLC errors up the wazoo if X is running, if its not, everything is fine,
I assume this is because the timing parameters for the PRI are so much more
strick.

I don't mind if X is a little less responsive (even alot less responsive),
but I
would really like to be able to run X on a server with a PRI.  Is there any way
to reduce X11's priority so that it doesn't interfere with the zaptel
driver
for the PRI... I've tried renicing X as far down as I can and renicing
Asterisk
up as far as I can, however I fear this won't ever fix the problem since I
think the actual kernel module that is running the pri card needs to get higher
priority (ie, the kernel itself needs higher priority).  Is there any way to do
this?  Am I correct in my analysis?  I really don't understand why on a
system
that averages less than 3% CPU usage with X running, why it can't handle the
PRI.  I know for whatever reason X always gets a really high priority (although
top doesn't show X getting any special treatment its PR 15 NICE 0 by
default,
lower than most other processes on the system).

Another idea is that right now the system is only a single proc, but it is dual
proc capable.  Would this somehow help if we added the second proc?  My
thinking is it won't because it's a kernel module we are dealing with,
and
because of that I can't control the affinity of the driver (I was thinking
at
one point put X11 on 1 proc and Asterisk on the second, but it's not
Asterisk
that has the problem I don't think.)

My final idea is that currently the system has an onboard 8mb ati graphic card
that leaves almost all actual graphics processing to the CPU, could adding a
better graphics card possibly help X use less cpu and not get in the way so
much?

Anyway, I know this isn't a supported setup, so if thats your answer
don't
bother replying, I'm know this will be a kludge/hack to get working (if I
can
get it working at all).  I'm just trying to do something that will be
convienient for me and my users, there are other systems running on the server
that I don't want to manage through the CLI, and the users don't know
how to
manage through the CLI, and there is no web management for them.

Does anyone have success running X on an asterisk box that terminates a PRI?
If so what hardware (video card, cpu, ram, mobo, etc)?

Thanks as I know this setup isn't supported, and I'm probably asking
alot, don't
think I'm just relying on the list for bizarre things, I've been trying
various
ways of doing this for the last 3 weeks, I can successfully run a vnc server on
the box (without X running) and everything works, so for whatever reason it is
getting a lower priority or something.  I really need to run GDM though as
managing VNC passwords/usernames/desktop settings is quite cumbersome and if we
can just get GDM running, we can use our ldap authentication server for logins
to this box (which is what we were doing previously when we didn't have a
PRI
terminated on this box).

Thanks alot for any responses/help,
Tom Christensen

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005, Tom wrote:
> I have a quick question.
> I know that running X on an asterisk server is not officially
"supported",
> however, I've never had any trouble with it until now (8 months, using
wctdm
> cards with fxo and fxs ports, IAX trunks, SIP phones, everything except a
PRI
> card).  Now I just installed my first asterisk box that terminates a PRI,
and
> bam, HDLC errors up the wazoo if X is running, if its not, everything is
fine,
> I assume this is because the timing parameters for the PRI are so much more
> strick.
> 
> I don't mind if X is a little less responsive (even alot less
responsive), but I
> would really like to be able to run X on a server with a PRI.  Is there any
way
> to reduce X11's priority so that it doesn't interfere with the
zaptel driver
> for the PRI... I've tried renicing X as far down as I can and renicing
Asterisk
> up as far as I can, however I fear this won't ever fix the problem
since I
> think the actual kernel module that is running the pri card needs to get
higher
> priority (ie, the kernel itself needs higher priority).  Is there any way
to do
> this?  Am I correct in my analysis?  I really don't understand why on a
system
> that averages less than 3% CPU usage with X running, why it can't
handle the
> PRI.  I know for whatever reason X always gets a really high priority
(although
> top doesn't show X getting any special treatment its PR 15 NICE 0 by
default,
> lower than most other processes on the system).
The graphics drivers run party in kernel mode and are thus not under the 
regular control of the user level scheduler. The user level scheduler is 
the only place nice has any effect.

All may not be lost. Under Linux 2.6 there is an experimental patch to 
make the kernel preemtable. This allows various parts of the kernel to 
yeild control to other parts on short notice. With the most aggressive 
settings the patch is reported to bring latency down to a far better level 
than would be required by the Zaptel cards.

It is experimental though and probably best left away from a production 
machine. On a testing machine it would be very interesting. Eventually 
this is how everyone will use the zaptel cards so an early preview is 
interesting.

Peter

On Sun, 2005-03-20 at 23:12 -0700, Tom wrote:
> Anyway, I know this isn't a supported setup, so if thats your answer
don't
> bother replying, I'm know this will be a kludge/hack to get working (if
I can
> get it working at all).  I'm just trying to do something that will be
> convienient for me and my users, there are other systems running on the
server
> that I don't want to manage through the CLI, and the users don't
know how to
> manage through the CLI, and there is no web management for them.
Just run X on your workstation, then login to your asterisk box (ssh -X
asterisk.box.com) and then run your X applications (xedit/etc)

This way, X windows runs on your workstation, along with any graphics
card stuff, but the X application (xedit) runs on your asterisk box. So
just be sure you don't go and run firefox, or mplayer or something
silly, and it should be OK....

Note, should == might... I haven't tested this, and really wouldn't
suggest it, but, I hope it is a more helpful solution than simply
"Don't
run X and learn to use the CLI for everything".

In case you need it, there are X servers available for MS Windows
platforms as well. Used to be one called exceed, but that was about 10
years ago, I just use linux on my desktop now instead :)

Regards,
Adam
-- 
 -- 
Adam Goryachev
Website Managers
Ph:  +61 2 9345 4395                        adam@websitemanagers.com.au
Fax: +61 2 9345 4396                        www.websitemanagers.com.au

On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 11:12:22PM -0700, Tom wrote:
> 
> I have a quick question.
> I know that running X on an asterisk server is not officially
"supported",
Generally it shouldn't cause "errors", but will probably degregate
performance, as an X server is probably as close as Asterisk is to the 
hardware and optimized just as well for minimal latency.
> however, I've never had any trouble with it until now (8 months, using
wctdm
> cards with fxo and fxs ports, IAX trunks, SIP phones, everything except a
PRI
> card).  Now I just installed my first asterisk box that terminates a PRI,
and
> bam, HDLC errors up the wazoo if X is running, if its not, everything is
fine,
> I assume this is because the timing parameters for the PRI are so much more
> strick.
Why do you need the X server running at all?

Is Asterisk running as root? With real-time priority? (-p)

What distro do you use, BTW?
> 
> I don't mind if X is a little less responsive (even alot less 
> responsive), but I would really like to be able to run X on a server 
> with a PRI.  Is there any way to reduce X11's priority so that it 
> doesn't interfere with the zaptel driver for the PRI... I've tried 
> renicing X as far down as I can and renicing Asterisk up as far as I 
> can, however I fear this won't ever fix the problem since I think the 
> actual kernel module that is running the pri card needs to get higher
> priority (ie, the kernel itself needs higher priority).  
>
What exactly do you run on X? Is the CPU very busy? try a light
interface such as icewm, windowmaker or fluxbox with a theme that uses
no gradients and no special effects.

If your display has a little resolution, try something like matchbox.
> Is there any 
> way to do this?  Am I correct in my analysis?  I really don't 
> understand why on a system
> that averages less than 3% CPU usage with X running, why it can't
handle the
> PRI.  I know for whatever reason X always gets a really high priority
(although
> top doesn't show X getting any special treatment its PR 15 NICE 0 by
default,
> lower than most other processes on the system).
> 
> Another idea is that right now the system is only a single proc, but it is
dual
> proc capable.  Would this somehow help if we added the second proc?  My
> thinking is it won't because it's a kernel module we are dealing
with, and
> because of that I can't control the affinity of the driver (I was
thinking at
> one point put X11 on 1 proc and Asterisk on the second, but it's not
Asterisk
> that has the problem I don't think.)
> 
> My final idea is that currently the system has an onboard 8mb ati graphic
card
> that leaves almost all actual graphics processing to the CPU, could adding
a
> better graphics card possibly help X use less cpu and not get in the way so
> much?
> 
> Anyway, I know this isn't a supported setup, so if thats your answer
don't
> bother replying, I'm know this will be a kludge/hack to get working (if
I can
> get it working at all).  I'm just trying to do something that will be
> convienient for me and my users, there are other systems running on the
server
> that I don't want to manage through the CLI, and the users don't
know how to
> manage through the CLI, and there is no web management for them.
You want to run a full desktop just be able to manage the Asterisk box?
That's what ssh is for.

Xorcom Rapid added a menu application for managing the box for those who
don't know the command to type. If you have an X server on your
workstation you can run X programs on your local X server. There should
be no need for a local X server on the Asterisk box.
> 
> Does anyone have success running X on an asterisk box that terminates a
PRI?
> If so what hardware (video card, cpu, ram, mobo, etc)?
> 
> Thanks as I know this setup isn't supported, and I'm probably
asking alot, don't
> think I'm just relying on the list for bizarre things, I've been
trying various
> ways of doing this for the last 3 weeks, I can successfully run a vnc
server on
> the box (without X running) and everything works, so for whatever reason it
is
> getting a lower priority or something.  I really need to run GDM though as
> managing VNC passwords/usernames/desktop settings is quite cumbersome and
if we
> can just get GDM running, we can use our ldap authentication server for
logins
> to this box (which is what we were doing previously when we didn't have
a PRI
> terminated on this box).
VNC is a protocol for remotely controling a desktop. There are several
ways of working with GDM. One useful way is to run a local XVnc server.
This requires no GDM at all, unless you want a separate user and
separate desktop for each real user (and waste tons of memory on that).

Still, why waste all of those resources of your * box?

-- 
Tzafrir Cohen         | New signature for new address and  |  VIM is
http://tzafrir.org.il | new homepage                       | a Mutt's  
tzafrir@cohens.org.il |                                    |  best
ICQ# 16849755         | Space reserved for other protocols | friend

On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 19:03 +1100, Adam Goryachev wrote:
> In case you need it, there are X servers available for MS Windows
> platforms as well. Used to be one called exceed, but that was about 10
> years ago, I just use linux on my desktop now instead :)
CygWin (http://www.cygwin.com/) has X server support.