[Freeswitch-users] Multi-Tenant Versus Multiple FS Instances

[Robert Hadley]

For servers supporting multiple tenants, around 500 users total, and presence for each tenant:  is it better to use one sip_profile with mulitple domains for each tenant, or is it better to use one sip_profile and domain per tenant?

Thanks,
Robert


From: Darcy Primrose [mailto:fs at voice2net.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 5:41 AM
To: FreeSWITCH Users Help
Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] Multi-Tenant Versus Multiple FS Instances

We run multi tenant versions of freeswitch, currently we have 4 switches in the mutli-tennant mode. It supports blf's, shared lines and blf with parked calls with no problems.  we use ringing call pickup with no issues.  The group at freeswitch was instrumental in helping us get to where we are.  We first tried mutliple instances and it simply did not work well.  We currently run up to 20 unique tennants on a single switch with about 400 maximum phones per switch, so I would think that should demonstrate that the freeswitch is a quality product in the multi tenant mode.  We could probably go beyond that, that is our self instituted limit.

We created a gui for it that lets us easily build a domain, provides hunt groups, auto attendants nite anwer and Cell Phone twinning, either in hunt groups or extensions, the gui is a combo of php, html and c programming and of course it is all protected with fail2ban.

This is designed specifically to support businesses with an IP PBX type application, small stores using shared line and virtual pbx's with no phones.  It does not support call centre type of operations.  Our largest current customer is 75 phones, but that is our market, not a limitation on the freeswitch.

I am not against sharing this with others.

Darcy Primrose
----- Original Message -----
From: Cal Leeming [Simplicity Media Ltd]<mailto:cal.leeming at simplicitymedialtd.co.uk>
To: FreeSWITCH Users Help<mailto:freeswitch-users at lists.freeswitch.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 7:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] Multi-Tenant Versus Multiple FS Instances

It's also worth mentioning that multi tenant implementation is *hard*, especially when used with ESL or mod_xml_curl etc.

There are some existing systems that use FS which give you decent multi tenancy support, or with some hard work and a lot of testing you could do it yourself.... It really depends on what you are trying to achieve.

Multi tenancy comes in very handy when you want to allow burstable resources, for example a customer could idle at around 2 CPS, and then burst into the thousands without requiring a machine upgrade. Generally speaking, it allows you to be more flexible, but it really depends if you've done a good enough job getting it configured correctly. If it's not done correctly, you could shoot yourself in the head... cross customer CDR contamination, internal calls diverted to the wrong domain and all sorts of nasty things.

If you're new to FS and want to go with multi tenancy, and need something out the door asap, you'd honestly be better going with one of the existing systems that uses FS. However if you've got a couple of months to burn and a good in-house programmer, it might be worth doing it yourself.

My two cents at least.

Cal

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Jerry Richards <jerry.richards at teotech.com<mailto:jerry.richards at teotech.com>> wrote:
Has anyone considered the Multi-tenant implementation (as described in the FS Wiki) versus having multiple Freeswitch instances running on the same machine (i.e. one instance for each company)?  I am wondering if there is a trade-off between these two approaches?

Regards,
Jerry


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freeswitch.org/pipermail/freeswitch-users/attachments/20140624/4a18a7e9/attachment.html