Well actually I have an average 15 telemarketers running on a small (650 euros) server with the same load (an average 1%). Of course availability and scalability are on a different level but it's no easy to build a case - which is the more cost effective scenario with this and a growing (50+ operators) load? Things to think about.

Regards,
   Raffaele

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 18:18, Erik Wickstrom <erik@erikwickstrom.com> wrote:
It's been under pretty light use.  About 20 users.  A bunch of DIDs coming in and some outbound campaigns.  A couple hundred calls a day. (we also did a test for an outbound campaign with 8 telemarketers making 1000s of calls in a day -- worked great!)

The AMI is based on Ubuntu 8.04.  We're using the smallest instance at this point, so it's $70/mo + bandwidth/storage ~~ maybe $80/mo.

The loadavg is always at 0.00.

Erik


On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 7:15 AM, Raffaele P. Guidi <raffaele.p.guidi@gmail.com> wrote:
Wow, that's cool. Can you give us some figures? How many users/calls per day, what is the AMI setup, an average cost per month? Do you think it would be a feasible solution for a call center? 


On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 18:21, Erik Wickstrom <erik@erikwickstrom.com> wrote:
I've been running a production FS app on EC2 since December.  It's been really stable.  Same server/instance since day1.  We've haven't had any complaints....

Erik


On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Kristian Kielhofner <kristian.kielhofner@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Brian West <brian@freeswitch.org> wrote:
> Not with FreeSWITCH in our testing.  Now if you have stupid defaults
> in your virtualization env. it might act funny but I have run FS on
> EC2 without a problem.
>
> /b

Hey Brian,

 FreeSWITCH in EC2 is a bit of a mystery to me...

 Call me old fashioned but in my mind VoIP and geography are linked
in %99 of scenarios.  Having VoIP services in a pure "cloud"
environment just doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

 Consider a "hosted" environment with clients registered to a
FreeSWITCH server.  One day your instance is physically running on
hardware in Seattle.  The next day it could (potentially) be running
in Chicago.  That's obviously a very different routing path for your
clients.  Even /if/ Amazon (or whomever) employs every routing/network
trick in the book you still won't be able to get over that change in
geography.

 It's certainly possible a change like this may very well never
happen in practice.  I wouldn't know; I've never used EC2 and I don't
even know that much about it.  I'm just curious how well strictly,
practically speaking this will work in the long term.

--
Kristian Kielhofner
http://www.astlinux.org
http://blog.krisk.org
http://www.star2star.com
http://www.submityoursip.com
http://www.voalte.com


_______________________________________________
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



_______________________________________________
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



_______________________________________________
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