Ok - that's great. I will build this out - thanks both for your help on this. Much appreciated. On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Michael Jerris<mike@jerris.com> wrote:
I think that summary is totally wrong. Loopback should be used here, and this should work to do what you want, just be aware of what that means.
Mike
On Aug 8, 2009, at 4:24 PM, Phillip Jones wrote:
Mike/Rupa ,
Thanks for your help on this. So I am correct that summarizing that FreeSWITCH does not really support fail over and multiple call destinations because the same mechanism is used to achieve both? And that loopback as a solution is possible but not recommended?
Is there any other solution to this? Perhaps a second FS box in the mix?
Phil
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Michael Jerris<mike@jerris.com> wrote:
loopback ends up using extra threads which we are only able to drop later in certain situations so it will decrease your total amount of calls you can do if your not careful with them.
Mike
On Aug 8, 2009, at 1:44 PM, Phillip Jones wrote:
Thanks very much for that - very help.
Why would loopback be considered "abuse"? What would be the downsides of doing this?
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 7:18 AM, Rupa Schomaker<rupa@rupa.com> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Rupa Schomaker <rupa@rupa.com> wrote:
<action application="bridge" data="sofia/gw1/$1|sofia/gw2/$2..."/>
That of course, should be:
<action application="bridge" data="sofia/gw1/$1|sofia/gw2/$1..."/> -- -Rupa
_______________________________________________ FreeSWITCH-users mailing list FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org