similar to: Asterisk 1.2 on CentOS 5?

Hi there, I am getting ready to set up a production Asterisk system. It needs to be stable. Upgrading, patching, rebooting, troubleshooting etc. are pretty much NOT an option once this thing is deployed. Like any phone system, it is expected to just work. Having said that, which is the best version and subversion of Asterisk to use? I was leaning towards 1.2 but it appears there are some

So what is the bottom line? Does it work or not. I've heard stories it works, it doesn't work, it kinda sorta works when it's not raining out side. Everything under the rainbow. What's the bottom line with recent updates on 1.2.x? Is it production ready for fax? By production ready I mean that it just works all the time and doesn't need any babysitting. Do I have to worry

Hi All, Eagerly waiting for v1.4.x to mature a bit before getting serious about it. Is it ready for production yet? If that's too general, where is it in terms of stability compared to where 1.2.x is now. Anyone running it successfully in production environment and if so what sort of config do you have?

This morning we discovered a serious bug that stopped all bridged audio in our Asterisk servers. Mark found the problem and soon fixed it. If you get this problem today, please update your Asterisk server. A fix has been commited to the subversion repository for 1.2 as well as trunk. A fixed 1.2.3 release will be published on ftp.digium.com as soon as we can find a release engineer (consider

Hi folks, I am having a small problem with asterisk-1.6.2.7 + app_fax on OpenBSD 4.7 -release. Everything seems to work fine. I have a macro which answers, receives the fax to a tiff, and then runs a script (mailfax) to convert that to pdf and email it. It all works perfectly except for some errors I am seeing in the console. After it hangs up I get a dozen or so messages in the cli

Hi Zengruan, Thank you for the patch! Yet something to improve: [auto build test ERROR on kvmarm/next] [also build test ERROR on kvm/linux-next linus/master v5.5-rc3 next-20191220] [cannot apply to arm64/for-next/core] [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system. BTW, we also suggest to use '--base' option to specify the base tree in

There are two problems in dlm_run_purgelist 1. If a lockres is found to be in use, dlm_run_purgelist keeps trying to purge the same lockres instead of trying the next lockres. 2. When a lockres is found unused, dlm_run_purgelist releases lockres spinlock before setting DLM_LOCK_RES_DROPPING_REF and calls dlm_purge_lockres. spinlock is reacquired but in this window lockres can get reused. This

Hi - I've just been testing out the latest CVS HEAD (as of about 10:00a EDT today). I'm getting some weird errors. Calls from one sip phone to another have OK audio in one direction and highly scrambled audio in the other direction. The console shows this error repeated ad nauseum during each call: Jul 18 16:08:03 ERROR[22941]: utils.c:509 tvfix: warning negative timestamp

I tried building with linux-2.6.0-test7 build dies with: make[1]: Entering directory `/home/rogelio/src/klibc-0.80/klibc' gcc -Wp,-MD,./.fork.d -march=i386 -Os -fomit-frame-pointer -malign-functions=0 -malign-jumps=0 -malign-loops=0 -nostdinc -iwithprefix include -I../klibc -I../klibc/arch/i386/include -I../klibc/include/bits32 -D__KLIBC__ -DBITSIZE=32 -I../klibc/include

v4->v5: - Move the optimized 2-task contending code to the generic file to enable more architectures to use it without code duplication. - Address some of the style-related comments by PeterZ. - Allow the use of unfair queue spinlock in a real para-virtualized execution environment. - Add para-virtualization support to the qspinlock code by ensuring that the lock holder and queue

v4->v5: - Move the optimized 2-task contending code to the generic file to enable more architectures to use it without code duplication. - Address some of the style-related comments by PeterZ. - Allow the use of unfair queue spinlock in a real para-virtualized execution environment. - Add para-virtualization support to the qspinlock code by ensuring that the lock holder and queue

At the most recent Xen Summit, Thomas Friebel presented a paper ("Preventing Guests from Spinning Around", http://xen.org/files/xensummitboston08/LHP.pdf) investigating the interactions between spinlocks and virtual machines. Specifically, he looked at what happens when a lock-holding VCPU gets involuntarily preempted. The obvious first order effect is that while the VCPU is not

At the most recent Xen Summit, Thomas Friebel presented a paper ("Preventing Guests from Spinning Around", http://xen.org/files/xensummitboston08/LHP.pdf) investigating the interactions between spinlocks and virtual machines. Specifically, he looked at what happens when a lock-holding VCPU gets involuntarily preempted. The obvious first order effect is that while the VCPU is not

At the most recent Xen Summit, Thomas Friebel presented a paper ("Preventing Guests from Spinning Around", http://xen.org/files/xensummitboston08/LHP.pdf) investigating the interactions between spinlocks and virtual machines. Specifically, he looked at what happens when a lock-holding VCPU gets involuntarily preempted. The obvious first order effect is that while the VCPU is not

I've been evaluating asterisk for quite some time now and am attempting to create services on it. The system is simple right now. asterisk seems to look up atleast every week if not more. I am running asterisk 1.0.9 and would like to find similiar experiences of long term stability. I attempted to debug it, but my asterisk isn't compiled with all the possible debugging flags, which

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 04:14:00PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > This patch makes the necessary changes at the x86 architecture > specific layer to enable the use of queue spinlock for x86-64. As > x86-32 machines are typically not multi-socket. The benefit of queue > spinlock may not be apparent. So queue spinlock is not enabled. > > Currently, there is some incompatibilities

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 04:14:00PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > This patch makes the necessary changes at the x86 architecture > specific layer to enable the use of queue spinlock for x86-64. As > x86-32 machines are typically not multi-socket. The benefit of queue > spinlock may not be apparent. So queue spinlock is not enabled. > > Currently, there is some incompatibilities

v5->v6: - Change the optimized 2-task contending code to make it fairer at the expense of a bit of performance. - Add a patch to support unfair queue spinlock for Xen. - Modify the PV qspinlock code to follow what was done in the PV ticketlock. - Add performance data for the unfair lock as well as the PV support code. v4->v5: - Move the optimized 2-task contending code to the

v5->v6: - Change the optimized 2-task contending code to make it fairer at the expense of a bit of performance. - Add a patch to support unfair queue spinlock for Xen. - Modify the PV qspinlock code to follow what was done in the PV ticketlock. - Add performance data for the unfair lock as well as the PV support code. v4->v5: - Move the optimized 2-task contending code to the

> Raghavendra KT had done some performance testing on this patch with > the following results: > > Overall we are seeing good improvement for pv-unfair version. > > System: 32 cpu sandybridge with HT on (4 node with 32 GB each) > Guest : 8GB with 16 vcpu/VM. > Average was taken over 8-10 data points. > > Base = 3.15-rc2 with PRAVIRT_SPINLOCK = y > > A =