Re: [Freeswitch-users] Fwd: Major deployment of outbound FAX on latest version of Freeswitch question
On 05/12/2011 05:21 PM, Juan Antonio Ibañez Santorum wrote:
Hello Steve!
I would like to ask you one question about fax system. You told that using FS+mod_spandsp could be gotten successful faxing rates over 99%. Looking at your experience, is 99% nearer to 100% or to 99%? Which errors do you find usually on that 1%?
You can run tests all day in a lab without failure. The real test is how well things work against a wide diversity of machines in the real world. This http://www.soft-switch.org/spandsp-soft-fax-performance.html says something about our testing, and what is achievable. Its quite a lot of work to get real reliability numbers. You get a lot of call failures on a typical public FAX server due to things like wrong numbers, voice calls into a FAX port, people purposefully dropping half completed FAX calls, and buggy FAX machines doing weird things. Don't ignore the last one. There are famous make machines with serious bugs. You need to manually check the failed calls one by one to get real reliability figures. In the end there are always a few calls where you are never sure who's fault the failure is. All I can say with hand on heart is the number of unexplainable failures is well below 1% Regards, Steve
Thank you again Steve. As you said, best test is a production enviroment. I will try to set up one machine to start testing a fax engine. Regards 2011/5/12 Steve Underwood <steveu@coppice.org>
On 05/12/2011 05:21 PM, Juan Antonio Ibañez Santorum wrote:
Hello Steve!
I would like to ask you one question about fax system. You told that using FS+mod_spandsp could be gotten successful faxing rates over 99%. Looking at your experience, is 99% nearer to 100% or to 99%? Which errors do you find usually on that 1%?
You can run tests all day in a lab without failure. The real test is how well things work against a wide diversity of machines in the real world. This http://www.soft-switch.org/spandsp-soft-fax-performance.html says something about our testing, and what is achievable. Its quite a lot of work to get real reliability numbers. You get a lot of call failures on a typical public FAX server due to things like wrong numbers, voice calls into a FAX port, people purposefully dropping half completed FAX calls, and buggy FAX machines doing weird things. Don't ignore the last one. There are famous make machines with serious bugs. You need to manually check the failed calls one by one to get real reliability figures. In the end there are always a few calls where you are never sure who's fault the failure is. All I can say with hand on heart is the number of unexplainable failures is well below 1%
Regards, Steve
_______________________________________________ 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
Having FS plus a Sangoma Card with echo cancel, is necessary to disable echo cancel in order to sending/receiving faxes? How can it be done? Regards 2011/5/12 Steve Underwood <steveu@coppice.org>
On 05/12/2011 05:21 PM, Juan Antonio Ibañez Santorum wrote:
Hello Steve!
I would like to ask you one question about fax system. You told that using FS+mod_spandsp could be gotten successful faxing rates over 99%. Looking at your experience, is 99% nearer to 100% or to 99%? Which errors do you find usually on that 1%?
You can run tests all day in a lab without failure. The real test is how well things work against a wide diversity of machines in the real world. This http://www.soft-switch.org/spandsp-soft-fax-performance.html says something about our testing, and what is achievable. Its quite a lot of work to get real reliability numbers. You get a lot of call failures on a typical public FAX server due to things like wrong numbers, voice calls into a FAX port, people purposefully dropping half completed FAX calls, and buggy FAX machines doing weird things. Don't ignore the last one. There are famous make machines with serious bugs. You need to manually check the failed calls one by one to get real reliability figures. In the end there are always a few calls where you are never sure who's fault the failure is. All I can say with hand on heart is the number of unexplainable failures is well below 1%
Regards, Steve
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (2)
-
Juan Antonio Ibañez Santorum
-
Steve Underwood