Displaying 20 results from an estimated 1000 matches similar to: "Help with Digium TE210P, TDM400P card in Dell PE830"
2006 Feb 06
1
TE210P mother board
Hi all,
I'm going to configure a middle asterisk installation. I'll use a TE210P to
connect a T1 channel bank and a PRI E1 line.
I'm thinking on using a SuperMicro P8SCT Mother Board that has a 1x 64-bit
133MHz PCI-X 3.3V.
In TE210P documentation I've read:
The TE210P is a 32-bit 33MHz card keyed for 3.3 volt operation.
Can SuperMicro slot (that is a 133Mhz slot) be used
2010 May 31
0
Dahdi PRI T1 Setup for TE210P
Hello,
I have been struggling with the configuration of this card on my box.
I have a T1 line and I am trying to setup asterisk with it.
I followed all the instructions and I still see a blinking red light on the
card.
I use fedora 12.
If everything is fine should I see a green line when I plug in the T1 line ?
I want to isolate the issue so I di not start asterisk. When I run asterisk
I get
2006 Apr 12
0
Config with TE210P, Asterisk and Legacy PBX and FreePBX?
Hi list!
Has anyone ever tried the following installation :
I want to replace our legacy PBX with Asterisk but... I still need the legacy
PBX as a 'channel bank' for fax (I need E1 not T1)
I will put a dual port PRI card in the Asterisk box, and for incoming and
outgoing faxes I want to use native bridging on the TE210P and route fax calls
(based on DID and prefix when dialling) to /
2006 Apr 28
0
Digium TE210P and faxing, is it possible?
Hello,
I recently acquired a Digium TE210P for a faxing solution I'm working
on. I would like to use the card to send faxes from my infrastructure
using Asterisk and HylaFAX. I'm curious if the zaptel driver will
recognize in/out faxes to/from the TE210P. Is this going to work or
should I not even try?
Thank you in advance, I greatly appreciate it.
-Dan
-------------- next part
2006 Jan 16
1
TE210P Trade
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I am stuck in a situation where I have two te110p's and really need a
te210P. Anyone interested in a trade? They are in working condition
guaranteed.
If this is the wrong forum for this, I am sorry... I will take it off list.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
2006 Apr 24
1
Dreadful results from zttest with TE210P and Dell 2850?
Hi list!
I'm trying to setup a new * server with a TE210P in a Dell 2850 box. I'm
using zaptel version 1.2.5, the linux flavour I'm using is CentOS 4.
In a previous thread I read about the results I should expect from
zttest. On my home box (using the crappy Asus A7V600) I got really bad
results from zttest (just over 97.5) but I know that this motherboard just
sucks.
To my
2006 Feb 09
1
TE210P + MicroITX as E1 to TDMoE appliance?
Has anyone every attempted to set up a mini PC to achieve much the same
functionality as the fonebridge box?
The sort of thing I'm imagining is a micro itx board & case in a
completely solid state configuration (flash disk, maybe a psu fan but
only if really required), with a TE210P (or equiv) card(s). The sole
purpose of this would be to be a bridge between E1 lines and TDMoE.
The
2013 Oct 25
0
OT: For sale (4) Digium TE210P Dual line cards
We performed a server hardware refresh recently here -- went PCI-x, and
now I have 4 extra PCI interface cards that I'd like to find a good home
for.
These have been extremely solid cards, all of them also have the
hardware echo cancellation modules.
http://www.voipsupply.com/dgm-te210p
Please contact me off-list if interested!
--
Mahlon E. Smith
http://www.martini.nu/contact.html
2007 Aug 24
2
TE210P digim card PRI problem
Dear all
I have now install TE210P 2 port E1 card on asterisk 1.4.10 on centOS 5 but thing is that i have connect 1 E1 port with avaya E1 back 2 back and second E1 card on Direct Telcom for outgoing for outside now i got this error when i call on avaya PRI
asterisk think PRI_CPE and remote end also CPE
i have configure /etc/zaptel.conf
span=1,1,0,ccs,hdb3
2006 Nov 13
8
Desktop integration
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000066">
<font size="+1">Hi all,<br>
<br>
I am interested in
2006 May 01
6
Problems with zaptel and TE210P
Hello,
I'm just starting out with asterisk and I'm playing around with the
system. Currently I have a Digium TE210P connected to a PRI on the
Asterisk server. I have a SIP soft phone on my laptop for testing that
is working fine. When I try to place a call from my soft phone I get
this from Asterisk:
May 1 09:11:41 NOTICE[20098]: app_dial.c:1029 dial_exec_full: Unable to
create
2018 Mar 13
1
Expected performance for WORM scenario
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 2:42 PM, Ondrej Valousek <
Ondrej.Valousek at s3group.com> wrote:
> Yes, I have had this in place already (well except of the negative cache,
> but enabling that did not make much effect).
>
> To me, this is no surprise ? nothing can match nfs performance for small
> files for obvious reasons:
>
Could you give profile info of the run you did with
2018 Mar 14
2
Expected performance for WORM scenario
We can't stick to single server because the law. Redundancy is a legal
requirement for our business.
I'm sort of giving up on gluster though. It would seem a pretty stupid
content addressable storage would suit our needs better.
On 13 March 2018 at 10:12, Ondrej Valousek <Ondrej.Valousek at s3group.com>
wrote:
> Yes, I have had this in place already (well except of the negative
2018 Mar 13
0
Expected performance for WORM scenario
Yes, I have had this in place already (well except of the negative cache, but enabling that did not make much effect).
To me, this is no surprise ? nothing can match nfs performance for small files for obvious reasons:
1. Single server, does not have to deal with distributed locks
2. Afaik, gluster does not support read/write delegations the same way NFS does.
3. Glusterfs is
2018 Mar 13
3
Expected performance for WORM scenario
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Ondrej Valousek <
Ondrej.Valousek at s3group.com> wrote:
> Well, it might be close to the _*synchronous*_ nfs, but it is still well
> behind of the asynchronous nfs performance.
>
> Simple script (bit extreme I know, but helps to draw the picture):
>
>
>
> #!/bin/csh
>
>
>
> set HOSTNAME=`/bin/hostname`
>
> set j=1
2005 Aug 10
6
USB handset wanted
Hello all asterisk users!
Question: Does anybody know about any good USB handset that would
understand SIP and Asterisk and will run with Linux?
I have found tons of them, but they are mainly only supported in Windows
environment.
I would like to set up new phone system in our company that would be
based on asterisk acting as PBX and SIP.
If you have any suggestions, please let me know. Any
2007 Nov 15
1
TE210P Vs TE220P difference
Dear all
anybody have idea of this 2 card and performance vise which one is suggestable ???
----PGP Signature--
Satish Patel
mobile:- +91-9818875535
http://www.linuxbug.org
---------------------------------
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
2010 Feb 08
5
zfs send/receive : panic and reboot
<copied from opensolaris-dicuss as this probably belongs here.>
I kept on trying to migrate my pool with children (see previous threads) and had the (bad) idea to try the -d option on the receive part.
The system reboots immediately.
Here is the log in /var/adm/messages
Feb 8 16:07:09 amber unix: [ID 836849 kern.notice]
Feb 8 16:07:09 amber ^Mpanic[cpu1]/thread=ffffff014ba86e40:
Feb 8
2018 Mar 13
0
Expected performance for WORM scenario
Well, it might be close to the _synchronous_ nfs, but it is still well behind of the asynchronous nfs performance.
Simple script (bit extreme I know, but helps to draw the picture):
#!/bin/csh
set HOSTNAME=`/bin/hostname`
set j=1
while ($j <= 7000)
echo ahoj > test.$HOSTNAME.$j
@ j++
end
rm -rf test.$HOSTNAME.*
Takes 9 seconds to execute on the NFS share, but 90 seconds on
2018 Mar 13
5
Expected performance for WORM scenario
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 6:23 PM, Ondrej Valousek <
Ondrej.Valousek at s3group.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Gluster will never perform well for small files.
>
> I believe there is nothing you can do with this.
>
It is bad compared to a disk filesystem but I believe it is much closer to
NFS now.
Andreas,
Looking at your workload, I am suspecting there to be lot of LOOKUPs