[Freeswitch-users] Questions on Building an application for FreeSWITCH
pjintheusa at gmail.com
Thu May 13 13:16:04 PDT 2010
What would the advantage of an N to N architecture be though? An ESL server
controlling several FS instances has a view of everything that is going on.
All calls/conferences etc. A real advantage. That is lost when two ESL
servers are run in parallel. State information could be in a DB cluster -
but why not have the in-process app access this directly, cutting out the
How does using ESL make it more scalable and more available with fewer
components? I am sure you are correct - I just don't see it.
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Kristian Kielhofner <kris at kriskinc.com>wrote:
> ESL connecting to a socket actually proves to be more scalable and
> more available with fewer components. Why not have N servers running
> your socket app with N servers running FreeSWITCH?
> OpenSIPS introduces its own issues with failover and I've yet to see
> DNS SRV be the reliability/scalability solution it's made out to be.
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Phillip Jones <pjintheusa at gmail.com>
> > And just a general thought of using ESL vs an in process solution like
> > mod_managed, or LUA.
> > My understanding is, that using a separate server/process does
> > give you another point of failure and, if you use a single ESL server
> > application to control several FS boxes, potentially a single point of
> > failure. It is fairly easy to build a scalable and reliable FS cluster
> > using DNS SRV and OpenSIPS in order to avoid any single points of
> > Having independent FS boxes that pull data, but can fail with little
> > seems attractive to me,
> Kristian Kielhofner
> FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
> FreeSWITCH-users at lists.freeswitch.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the FreeSWITCH-users