VoIP Mailing List Archives

[stotaro at totarotechn...]

I don't think your issue is the VIA CPU but the I/O of your flash
drive. Voicemail is what I suspect being the I/O bottleneck.

Thanks,
Steve T

On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Loic Didelot <ldidelot at mixvoip.com> wrote:

[ldidelot at mixvoip.com]

Yes,
but they get like 10 voicemails per day. That feature isnt really used
alot.

Loic

On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 14:58 -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:

[stotaro at totarotechn...]

Run top along with the tool that indicated the high I/O and see what
is going on. Are you doing G729 or anything like that?

Thanks,
Steve T

On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Loic Didelot <ldidelot at mixvoip.com> wrote:

[tzafrir.cohen at xorco...]

On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 03:22:07PM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:

[gavin.henry at gmail.com]

What did you do to setup a button for alerts?

Thanks.

[ldidelot at mixvoip.com]

Depends on the phone.

On many devices you can setup buttons to call a url. Thats what I did.
Loic

On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 21:19 +0100, Gavin Henry wrote:

[ldidelot at mixvoip.com]

Hi,
I am using g711a everywhere.

I checked on a completely idle system (no calls at all) and idle CPU is
dropping from 100% to 0% more than once per minute.

procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system-- ----cpu----
r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa
1 0 0 891124 4644 42868 0 0 0 28 4047 85757 0 97 3 0
0 0 0 891124 4644 42876 0 0 0 0 4042 68342 0 94 6 0
0 0 0 891124 4644 42876 0 0 0 0 4042 72429 0 97 3 0
0 0 0 891124 4644 42876 0 0 0 0 4065 158878 0 100 0 0
0 0 0 891124 4644 42876 0 0 0 0 4033 59033 0 98 2 0
0 0 0 891124 4644 42876 0 0 0 0 4012 14464 0 96 4 0
0 0 0 891124 4652 42868 0 0 0 76 4013 19727 0 37 62 1
0 0 0 891124 4652 42876 0 0 0 0 4011 20225 0 4 96 0
0 0 0 891124 4652 42876 0 0 0 0 4011 23901 0 20 80 0
0 1 0 891124 4652 42876 0 0 0 4 4025 21165 0 40 55 5
0 0 0 891124 4660 42876 0 0 0 32 4028 20190 0 1 95 4
0 0 0 891124 4660 42876 0 0 0 0 4022 23295 0 0 100 0
0 0 0 891124 4660 42876 0 0 0 0 4111 20508 0 0 100 0
0 0 0 891124 4660 42876 0 0 0 0 4102 25239 0 30 70 0
0 0 0 891124 4660 42876 0 0 0 0 4112 23148 0 0 100 0
0 0 0 891124 4668 42868 0 0 0 52 4116 19031 0 0 100 0
1 0 0 891124 4668 42876 0 0 0 0 4110 21776 0 0 100 0
0 0 0 891124 4668 42876 0 0 0 0 4150 20332 0 0 100 0
0 0 0 891124 4668 42876 0 0 0 0 4114 26285 0 0 100 0
0 0 0 891124 4668 42876 0 0 0 32 4118 23029 1 0 99 0
0 0 0 891124 4668 42876 0 0 0 0 4121 23284 0 0 100 0
0 0 0 891124 4676 42868 0 0 0 60 4112 25232 0 36 64 0
0 0 0 891124 4676 42876 0 0 0 0 4134 21583 0 99 1 0
0 0 0 891124 4676 42876 0 0 0 0 4105 26029 0 100 0 0
0 0 0 891124 4676 42876 0 0 0 76 4143 22795 0 25 75 0
0 0 0 891124 4676 42876 0 0 0 0 4118 21418 0 0 54 46
0 0 0 891124 4676 42876 0 0 0 0 4108 25499 0 0 100 0
0 0 0 891124 4684 42868 0 0 0 52 4081 20778 0 0 100 0
0 0 0 891124 4684 42876 0 0 0 0 4011 25463 0 13 87 0
0 0 0 891124 4684 42876 0 0 0 0 4021 23502 0 86 14 0
0 0 0 891124 4684 42876 0 0 0 0 4015 21693 0 1 99 0
On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 22:28 +0300, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:

[ldidelot at mixvoip.com]

Hi its me again.

Here is the output of zttest of a completely idle system (no calls).
Acoording to some documents those values do not seem to be good.

The IRQ of my zaptel card is shared with other devices. But not sure if
this causes a problem.
lspci -v | grep "IRQ 22" -B4
00:0c.0 ISDN controller: Cologne Chip Designs GmbH ISDN network
Controller [HFC-8S] (rev 01)
Subsystem: Cologne Chip Designs GmbH Unknown device b55b
Flags: medium devsel, IRQ 22


00:0f.0 IDE interface: VIA Technologies, Inc. VIA VT6420 SATA RAID
Controller (rev 80) (prog-if 8f [Master SecP SecO PriP PriO])
Subsystem: VIA Technologies, Inc. VIA VT6420 SATA RAID Controller
Flags: bus master, medium devsel, latency 32, IRQ 22


00:0f.1 IDE interface: VIA Technologies, Inc.
VT82C586A/B/VT82C686/A/B/VT823x/A/C PIPC Bus Master IDE (rev 06)
(prog-if 8a [Master SecP PriP])
Subsystem: VIA Technologies, Inc.
VT82C586/B/VT82C686/A/B/VT8233/A/C/VT8235 PIPC Bus Master IDE
Flags: bus master, medium devsel, latency 32, IRQ 22





Opened pseudo zap interface, measuring accuracy...
99.989845% 99.979881% 99.987305% 99.987297% 99.988190% 99.986824%
99.987999%
99.987701% 99.984970% 99.987892% 99.987587% 99.987595% 99.987885%
99.988968% 99.987885%
99.989449% 99.987595% 99.989250% 99.988571% 99.987106% 99.990044%
99.990921% 99.986519%
99.990822% 99.978127% 99.985054% 99.984482% 99.963478% 99.978722%
99.950005% 99.974609%
99.955170% 99.969528% 99.967972% 99.964066% 99.979797% 99.962898%
99.976852% 99.980072%
99.972946% 99.989937% 99.972359% 99.986908% 99.987694% 99.988770%
99.993660% 99.991516%
99.992577% 99.993164% 99.992470% 99.984276% 99.991600% 99.983200%
99.992279% 99.979790%
99.990036% 99.981544% 99.988770% 99.981346% 99.988182% 99.988190%
99.986717% 99.991211%
99.986618% 99.986824% 99.987991% 99.988869% 99.989265% 99.987015%
99.987396% 99.987495%
99.985657% 99.987396% 99.986229% 99.987206% 99.986908% 99.986618%
99.987411% 99.988579%
99.989059% 99.987106% 99.986336% 99.987114% 99.988190% 99.983200%
99.958191% 99.986031%
99.989357% 99.985939% 99.988678% 99.989746% 99.990341% 99.988762%
99.989159% 99.976067%
99.991798% 99.962799% 99.976173% 99.972366% 99.962898% 99.972855%
99.951462% 99.983986%
99.952049% 99.985733% 99.963776% 99.977440% 99.980186% 99.973915%
99.977333% 99.990341%
99.969032% 99.995110% 99.988770% 99.989555% 99.991211% 99.992386%
99.990929% 99.992294%
99.991119% 99.991997% 99.992088% 99.980865% 99.988670% 99.982712%
99.989059% 99.981934%
99.982903% 99.981850% 99.989845% 99.981628% 99.989258% 99.872566%
99.988678%
--- Results after 134 passes ---
Best: 99.995 -- Worst: 99.873 -- Average: 99.982824, Difference:
99.983075


Loic



On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 01:36 +0200, Loic Didelot wrote:

[gavin.henry at gmail.com]

2008/7/2 Loic Didelot <ldidelot at mixvoip.com>:

[matt at venturevoip.com]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Loic Didelot wrote:

[ldidelot at mixvoip.com]

Hello,
this is the case. Idle goes to 0% and IRQ goes to 100%.

I have a Junghanns ISDN card (bristuff) card. And I guess it is using
that Echo Canceler.

Best regards,
Loic Didelot.

On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 14:52 +1200, Matt Riddell wrote: