Multi-Tenant Versus Multiple FS Instances
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
The point of Multi-tenant is you should not need to do that, waste valuable resources using multiple VM's, mange many configs (1 for each vm) vs 1 config for all tenants. With a system that does not support multi-tenant/domain/context, you are forced to do just that, this is one of the many reasons people looking for true multi-tenancy choose Freeswitch over the other options. Thanks, Moishe Grunstein Tornado Computer Systems, Inc. 212.400.7650 888.IPPBX.US Service Request Email: support@nysolutions.com Polycom Certified VAR Microsoft Small Business Specialist, Cisco SMB Select Certified Computer Networking * Managed Services * IP Video Surveillance * Network Assessments * Web Solutions * Voice over IP * Disaster Recovery * Network Security * Site Surveys * CMS -----Original Message----- From: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org [mailto:freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Richards Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 5:37 PM To: FreeSWITCH Users Help Subject: [Freeswitch-users] Multi-Tenant Versus Multiple FS Instances 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 _________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.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
Multiple FreeSWITCH instances require a new IP or at least a new port for each setup...that can get rather cumbersome. -Avi On Jun 11, 2014 1:22 AM, "Moishe Grunstein" <max@nysolutions.com> wrote:
The point of Multi-tenant is you should not need to do that, waste valuable resources using multiple VM's, mange many configs (1 for each vm) vs 1 config for all tenants.
With a system that does not support multi-tenant/domain/context, you are forced to do just that, this is one of the many reasons people looking for true multi-tenancy choose Freeswitch over the other options.
Thanks,
Moishe Grunstein Tornado Computer Systems, Inc. 212.400.7650 888.IPPBX.US Service Request Email: support@nysolutions.com Polycom Certified VAR Microsoft Small Business Specialist, Cisco SMB Select Certified
Computer Networking * Managed Services * IP Video Surveillance * Network Assessments * Web Solutions * Voice over IP * Disaster Recovery * Network Security * Site Surveys * CMS
-----Original Message----- From: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org [mailto: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Richards Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 5:37 PM To: FreeSWITCH Users Help Subject: [Freeswitch-users] Multi-Tenant Versus Multiple FS Instances
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
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.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
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.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
It depends also on the multi tenancy requirements. If you need to keep your customer's data more seperated then multiple instances on one machine has some advantages. On the other hand, having one single Freeswitch saves resources. /Peter On 06/10/14 23:37, Jerry Richards 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
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.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
-- With kind regards Peter Steinbach Telefaks Services GmbH mailto:lists (att) telefaks.de Internet: www.telefaks.de
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@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
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.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
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] To: FreeSWITCH Users Help 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@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 _________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.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
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@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@simplicitymedialtd.co.uk> To: FreeSWITCH Users Help<mailto:freeswitch-users@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@teotech.com<mailto:jerry.richards@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
It can be done, it requires the most perfect setup, dns, srv, naptr and a deep understanding of the configuration. Its a rubix cube do one thing wrong you can't simply peel the stickers off to fix it. Can't stress PERFET DNS IS REQUIRED. -- Brian West brian@freeswitch.org Twitter: @FreeSWITCH , @briankwest http://www.freeswitchbook.com http://www.freeswitchcookbook.com T: +1.918.420.9001 | F: +1.918.420.9002 | M: +1.918.424.WEST iNUM: +883 5100 1420 9001 ISN: 410*543 Skype:briankwest PGP Key: http://www.bkw.org/key.txt (AB93356707C76CED) On Jun 10, 2014, at 4:37 PM, Jerry Richards <jerry.richards@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
____________
Brian, Which approach will you recommend? Which one is the most easy to setup? Thanks. On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Brian West <brian@freeswitch.org> wrote:
It can be done, it requires the most perfect setup, dns, srv, naptr and a deep understanding of the configuration. Its a rubix cube do one thing wrong you can't simply peel the stickers off to fix it.
Can't stress PERFET DNS IS REQUIRED.
-- Brian West brian@freeswitch.org
Twitter: @FreeSWITCH , @briankwest http://www.freeswitchbook.com http://www.freeswitchcookbook.com
T: +1.918.420.9001 | F: +1.918.420.9002 | M: +1.918.424.WEST iNUM: +883 5100 1420 9001 ISN: 410*543 Skype:briankwest PGP Key: http://www.bkw.org/key.txt (AB93356707C76CED)
On Jun 10, 2014, at 4:37 PM, Jerry Richards <jerry.richards@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
____________
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.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
Brian, I have multi-tenant setup with only using 1 DNS domain per FS box. Using multiple "realms" was the key to my success. each tenant's domain is made up (does not actually resolve to an IP) for example: 1.local (domain 1) 2.local (domain 2) 3.local (domain 3) The trick with that is getting your phones configured perfectly. i've had perfect success with Polycoms, Ciscos, X-lite, ekiga, ...basically every phone i've tested works. On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Brian West <brian@freeswitch.org> wrote:
It can be done, it requires the most perfect setup, dns, srv, naptr and a deep understanding of the configuration. Its a rubix cube do one thing wrong you can't simply peel the stickers off to fix it.
Can't stress PERFET DNS IS REQUIRED.
-- Brian West brian@freeswitch.org
Twitter: @FreeSWITCH , @briankwest http://www.freeswitchbook.com http://www.freeswitchcookbook.com
T: +1.918.420.9001 | F: +1.918.420.9002 | M: +1.918.424.WEST iNUM: +883 5100 1420 9001 ISN: 410*543 Skype:briankwest PGP Key: http://www.bkw.org/key.txt (AB93356707C76CED)
On Jun 10, 2014, at 4:37 PM, Jerry Richards <jerry.richards@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
____________
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.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
participants (10)
-
Adolphe Cher-Aime
-
Avi Marcus
-
Brian West
-
Cal Leeming [Simplicity Media Ltd]
-
Darcy Primrose
-
Jerry Richards
-
Moishe Grunstein
-
Peter Steinbach
-
Robert Hadley
-
Vik Killa