Do not agree. Issues happening under extreme cases like high load with
some specific conditions are hard to reproduce, sharing the
information in this case is a lot more efficient, for all.

Sent from my mobile device

On Oct 27, 2011, at 18:56, Robert Huddleston <rhuddleston@gmail.com> wrote:

> My bologna has a first name - it's O S C A R...
>
> This topic is getting really old... I have to agree with Antm - get out of
> the lazy pants and do some research / hard work.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org
> [mailto:freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org] On Behalf Of Sergey
> Okhapkin
> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 12:43 PM
> To: FreeSWITCH Users Help
> Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] High load on database server
>
> What do you mean "shared ODBC"?
>
> On Thursday 27 October 2011, Madovsky wrote:
>> but, is anyone experienced that with shared ODBC ? (managing more than 330
>> concurrent calls)
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Madovsky" <infos@madovsky.org>
>> To: "FreeSWITCH Users Help" <freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 12:33 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] High load on database server
>>
>>> ha ok, good luck so
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Cliff Wells" <cliff@develix.com>
>>> To: "FreeSWITCH Users Help" <freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org>
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 12:26 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] High load on database server
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 2011-10-27 at 11:55 -0400, Madovsky wrote:
>>>>> I means that depend the quality of your script ;)
>>>>
>>>> Quality isn't the issue here.  The script is too simple to be incorrect
>>>> (and it carefully releases the odbc connection back to the pool in a
>>>> hangup handler).  I have written poor-quality code plenty of times, but
>>>> 25 years as a programmer usually allows me the luxury of knowing when
>>>> I'm doing it, thanks.
>>>>
>>>> In any case, Lua scripts work fine.  Google will tell you that unixODBC
>>>> before 2.3.0 was a bit of a mess, so I expect the issue lies there, but
>>>> again, I emphasize, everything WORKS GREAT (been using it for a couple
>>>> of years now) until you get to very high concurrency (about 330
>>>> concurrent calls on a single system).  If you don't expect to handle
>>>> more than 300 concurrent calls, then you do not need to worry about it.
>>>> At all.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Cliff
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>
>
>
> 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