What's better Unix ro Windows? LOL
I really hope this does not blow up into an ideological jihad, but I am curious what people think and if they have any evidence to support their claims. I am in fact a long time windows developer (anyone remember windows 2.2 - that was hard shit). I have chosen what may be a unique approach to FS "Configuration, Command and Control". I started using FS by building it on Centos 5.n. Fighting, scratching and clawing it into a working multi-tenant switch. Looking back, everything I needed to do was in the email tree, I just didn't know what to ask. I have now moved FS on to a "production" VPS server for $30 a month with amazing success. See it here: http://www.synapseglobal.com/voip_services.php It comes prebuilt with Centos and FS latest build compiled and ready to go. That's not why I am writing though. Their tech support is adamant that it can handle up 12 CONCURRENT CALLS at the base configuration. I learned about IPTABLES and FAIL2BAN and like them very much. However, I still work better/faster/surer in my Windows environment. So, I have taken what some might think is the worst possible approach: Configure and Control my Centos FS Server from my own ASP.NET Web Application (hosted elsewhere). My approach is to use the socket interface to send commands and use programmatic SFTP to the SHH shell for XML file exchange. I am about 85% done with version 1.0 and very pleased with it. I hope to have customers be able to login and modify their own configurations (call routes, IVRs, extensions mapping to devices line keys, Cisco spa504g provisioning, etc). Other device provisioning is in the pipe, but we have all 504Gs here and the provisioning code has been a tremendous help. Anyway, that is how I got to the odd work configuration, now I would like a discussion: My belief is that the "slim profile" of Centos will allow FS to handle greater load on a given hardware profile than could be handled by FS on Windows with the same hardware. I would like to AVOID the issues of security for this discussion, I firmly believe that you will provide better security on the platform that you understand the best. Let's just talk RAM, MIPS, NICs and FS performance and other issues I might be missing. Should a Windows guy go with FS on Windows or do you really get more bang for your buck in a Unix environment? I look forward to reading your thoughts. Sean
Given that an idle Linux machine properly configured will always consume less CPU and ram than any widows machine I have ever used my vote is for Linux On Jul 25, 2012 8:08 PM, "Sean Devoy" <sdevoy@bizfocused.com> wrote:
I really hope this does not blow up into an ideological jihad, but I am curious what people think and if they have any evidence to support their claims. I am in fact a long time windows developer (anyone remember windows 2.2 – that was hard shit). I have chosen what may be a unique approach to FS “Configuration, Command and Control”.****
** **
I started using FS by building it on Centos 5.n. Fighting, scratching and clawing it into a working multi-tenant switch. Looking back, everything I needed to do was in the email tree, I just didn’t know what to ask. I have now moved FS on to a “production” VPS server for $30 a month with amazing success. See it here: http://www.synapseglobal.com/voip_services.php It comes prebuilt with Centos and FS latest build compiled and ready to go. That’s not why I am writing though. Their tech support is adamant that it can handle up 12 CONCURRENT CALLS at the base configuration.****
** **
I learned about IPTABLES and FAIL2BAN and like them very much. However, I still work better/faster/surer in my Windows environment. So, I have taken what some might think is the worst possible approach: Configure and Control my Centos FS Server from my own ASP.NET Web Application (hosted elsewhere). My approach is to use the socket interface to send commands and use programmatic SFTP to the SHH shell for XML file exchange. I am about 85% done with version 1.0 and very pleased with it. I hope to have customers be able to login and modify their own configurations (call routes, IVRs, extensions mapping to devices line keys, Cisco spa504g provisioning, etc). Other device provisioning is in the pipe, but we have all 504Gs here and the provisioning code has been a tremendous help.****
** **
Anyway, that is how I got to the odd work configuration, now I would like a discussion:****
My belief is that the “slim profile” of Centos will allow FS to handle greater load on a given hardware profile than could be handled by FS on Windows with the same hardware. I would like to AVOID the issues of security for this discussion, I firmly believe that you will provide better security on the platform that you understand the best. Let’s just talk RAM, MIPS, NICs and FS performance and other issues I might be missing.*** *
** **
Should a Windows guy go with FS on Windows or do you really get more bang for your buck in a Unix environment?****
** **
I look forward to reading your thoughts.****
** **
Sean****
** **
_________________________________________________________________________ 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
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Sean Devoy <sdevoy@bizfocused.com> wrote:
Their tech support is adamant that it can handle up 12 CONCURRENT CALLS at the base configuration.
That's a pretty low number of concurrent calls. I have no reason to disbelieve him.
My belief is that the “slim profile” of Centos will allow FS to handle greater load on a given hardware profile than could be handled by FS on Windows with the same hardware. I would like to AVOID the issues of security for this discussion, I firmly believe that you will provide better security on the platform that you understand the best. Let’s just talk RAM, MIPS, NICs and FS performance and other issues I might be missing.
The CentOS install will require less overhead for the OS when compared to Windows. However, with a beefy box, it wouldn't even matter. FS is said to run nicely on Windows and there is no doubt that it performs well on Linux. I would only recommend Linux to someone who already knows Windows when dealing with *minimally* configured servers. In those situations, it becomes obvious (to me) that Linux is the better fit.
Should a Windows guy go with FS on Windows or do you really get more bang for your buck in a Unix environment?
Generally speaking, yes. More bang for your buck. I would go with what makes you feel comfortable for now. But, I would also encourage you to deepen your Linux know-how. All of the power, flexibility, stability, hackability, malleability, and reliability that you find in FreeSWITCH can often be found for free in the Linux ecosystem. You can expect to invest some time learning it --just like learning FreeSWITCH took time (heck, you've been learning Windows for nearly 25 years). Summary: go with what you feel good about today. Don't cheat yourself by shying away from Linux tomorrow. Good luck, Gabe
Typically, when you're working with Linux, and in this case CentOS Linux, you can get into the nitty gritty with "relative" ease. CentOS is an OS on a conservative release schedule (with CentOS 6 to be EOL'ed in 2020). Which means, while bug-fixes and patches and updates are implemented, newer features generally aren't. So what that does, is offer you a very predictable platform on which you can run your system. Practical, predictable, and when set up properly, pretty low for resource consumption. With CentOS, I'm typically "Go CLI or go home". I also don't set up email on these servers, things which heavily poll will bog down your performance. This also adds a learning curve, if you're not used to working with the CLI (command line interface). I'd also like to piggy-back onto what Gabriel said, but in a different light. If you're working with a customer base, you really want to make sure you know what you're doing if it hits the fan. For instance, if you set up a funky iptables rule which won't allow anything through, or something along those lines. Not that it should (or would) direct you away from Linux for your FS environment, it's just something to be aware of. That being said, I think that FreeBSD would be the best bang for your buck. A verrry rough comparison of Linux vs BSD would be: Linux is "home grown", while BSD is "engineered". 'We who cut mere stones must always be envisioning cathedrals.' Quarry Worker's Creed On 7/25/2012 9:49 PM, Gabriel Gunderson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Sean Devoy <sdevoy@bizfocused.com> wrote:
Their tech support is adamant that it can handle up 12 CONCURRENT CALLS at the base configuration. That's a pretty low number of concurrent calls. I have no reason to disbelieve him.
My belief is that the “slim profile” of Centos will allow FS to handle greater load on a given hardware profile than could be handled by FS on Windows with the same hardware. I would like to AVOID the issues of security for this discussion, I firmly believe that you will provide better security on the platform that you understand the best. Let’s just talk RAM, MIPS, NICs and FS performance and other issues I might be missing. The CentOS install will require less overhead for the OS when compared to Windows. However, with a beefy box, it wouldn't even matter. FS is said to run nicely on Windows and there is no doubt that it performs well on Linux. I would only recommend Linux to someone who already knows Windows when dealing with *minimally* configured servers. In those situations, it becomes obvious (to me) that Linux is the better fit.
Should a Windows guy go with FS on Windows or do you really get more bang for your buck in a Unix environment? Generally speaking, yes. More bang for your buck.
I would go with what makes you feel comfortable for now. But, I would also encourage you to deepen your Linux know-how. All of the power, flexibility, stability, hackability, malleability, and reliability that you find in FreeSWITCH can often be found for free in the Linux ecosystem. You can expect to invest some time learning it --just like learning FreeSWITCH took time (heck, you've been learning Windows for nearly 25 years).
Summary: go with what you feel good about today. Don't cheat yourself by shying away from Linux tomorrow.
Good luck, Gabe
_________________________________________________________________________ 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
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
CentOS 6 should be avoided at all costs at the time of writing this. There are performance issues inside of it which Ken Rice hasn't had the time or energy to chase down. If you're really looking for help with FreeSWITCH on a Windows platform, you might want to talk to Dave Kompel about it. He's the resident Windows guru here ;) On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Timothy Bolton <ifoundthetao@gmail.com> wrote:
Typically, when you're working with Linux, and in this case CentOS Linux, you can get into the nitty gritty with "relative" ease. CentOS is an OS on a conservative release schedule (with CentOS 6 to be EOL'ed in 2020). Which means, while bug-fixes and patches and updates are implemented, newer features generally aren't. So what that does, is offer you a very predictable platform on which you can run your system. Practical, predictable, and when set up properly, pretty low for resource consumption.
With CentOS, I'm typically "Go CLI or go home". I also don't set up email on these servers, things which heavily poll will bog down your performance. This also adds a learning curve, if you're not used to working with the CLI (command line interface).
I'd also like to piggy-back onto what Gabriel said, but in a different light. If you're working with a customer base, you really want to make sure you know what you're doing if it hits the fan. For instance, if you set up a funky iptables rule which won't allow anything through, or something along those lines. Not that it should (or would) direct you away from Linux for your FS environment, it's just something to be aware of.
That being said, I think that FreeBSD would be the best bang for your buck. A verrry rough comparison of Linux vs BSD would be: Linux is "home grown", while BSD is "engineered".
'We who cut mere stones must always be envisioning cathedrals.' Quarry Worker's Creed
On 7/25/2012 9:49 PM, Gabriel Gunderson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Sean Devoy <sdevoy@bizfocused.com> wrote:
Their tech support is adamant that it can handle up 12 CONCURRENT CALLS at the base configuration. That's a pretty low number of concurrent calls. I have no reason to disbelieve him.
My belief is that the “slim profile” of Centos will allow FS to handle greater load on a given hardware profile than could be handled by FS on Windows with the same hardware. I would like to AVOID the issues of security for this discussion, I firmly believe that you will provide better security on the platform that you understand the best. Let’s just talk RAM, MIPS, NICs and FS performance and other issues I might be missing. The CentOS install will require less overhead for the OS when compared to Windows. However, with a beefy box, it wouldn't even matter. FS is said to run nicely on Windows and there is no doubt that it performs well on Linux. I would only recommend Linux to someone who already knows Windows when dealing with *minimally* configured servers. In those situations, it becomes obvious (to me) that Linux is the better fit.
Should a Windows guy go with FS on Windows or do you really get more bang for your buck in a Unix environment? Generally speaking, yes. More bang for your buck.
I would go with what makes you feel comfortable for now. But, I would also encourage you to deepen your Linux know-how. All of the power, flexibility, stability, hackability, malleability, and reliability that you find in FreeSWITCH can often be found for free in the Linux ecosystem. You can expect to invest some time learning it --just like learning FreeSWITCH took time (heck, you've been learning Windows for nearly 25 years).
Summary: go with what you feel good about today. Don't cheat yourself by shying away from Linux tomorrow.
Good luck, Gabe
_________________________________________________________________________ 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
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
CentOS 6 should be avoided at all costs at the time of writing this. There are performance issues inside of it which Ken Rice hasn't had the time or energy to chase down.
Interestingly some bsd folks warned me about CentOS 5 timing problems in the kernel when it was released. Is it a similar sort of thing with RedHat putting in their own kernel stuff? Are we talking a high load machine when mentioning performance problems? This is the first I've heard of CentOS 6 performance problems. Thanks for the heads up
On FS, centos5 actually greatly outperforms centos6... Somethings not right but I havnet been able to put my finger on it... Once of these days I'll oprofile this thing and see whats up On 7/26/12 1:50 AM, "Chris Mylonas" <chris@opencsta.org> wrote:
CentOS 6 should be avoided at all costs at the time of writing this. There are performance issues inside of it which Ken Rice hasn't had the time or energy to chase down.
Interestingly some bsd folks warned me about CentOS 5 timing problems in the kernel when it was released. Is it a similar sort of thing with RedHat putting in their own kernel stuff?
Are we talking a high load machine when mentioning performance problems?
This is the first I've heard of CentOS 6 performance problems.
Thanks for the heads up _________________________________________________________________________ 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
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
I've run FreeSWITCH under Linux and Windows. On Windows, I had no problems sustaining hundreds of calls/sec, over 2000 sessions (without media). And that was in a virtualized (Hyper-V) system with a Q6600 processor; I think about 2 cores were used. One big caveat for 32-bit FS on Windows. FS is...liberal...when it comes to managing threads. It doesn't use lightweight threads or continuations, it really just spawns threads left and right. On Windows, the default stack is 1MB, so you can quickly run out of memory addresses on a 32-bit process. So, either run x64 FS, or adjust the stack size. Unless you're really getting into high-end performance, then I highly doubt the OS matters. And even then, I haven't seen any benchmarks showing Linux with much higher performance for FreeSWITCH. The more important stuff is the rest of the stack, like fail2ban, OpenSIPS, iptables versus the not-so-amazing Windows Firewall, etc. As others have said, definitely go with whatever makes you more comfortable. -Michael From: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org [mailto:freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org] On Behalf Of Sean Devoy Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 7:08 PM To: FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org Subject: [Freeswitch-users] What's better Unix ro Windows? LOL I really hope this does not blow up into an ideological jihad, but I am curious what people think and if they have any evidence to support their claims. I am in fact a long time windows developer (anyone remember windows 2.2 - that was hard shit). I have chosen what may be a unique approach to FS "Configuration, Command and Control". I started using FS by building it on Centos 5.n. Fighting, scratching and clawing it into a working multi-tenant switch. Looking back, everything I needed to do was in the email tree, I just didn't know what to ask. I have now moved FS on to a "production" VPS server for $30 a month with amazing success. See it here: http://www.synapseglobal.com/voip_services.php It comes prebuilt with Centos and FS latest build compiled and ready to go. That's not why I am writing though. Their tech support is adamant that it can handle up 12 CONCURRENT CALLS at the base configuration. I learned about IPTABLES and FAIL2BAN and like them very much. However, I still work better/faster/surer in my Windows environment. So, I have taken what some might think is the worst possible approach: Configure and Control my Centos FS Server from my own ASP.NET Web Application (hosted elsewhere). My approach is to use the socket interface to send commands and use programmatic SFTP to the SHH shell for XML file exchange. I am about 85% done with version 1.0 and very pleased with it. I hope to have customers be able to login and modify their own configurations (call routes, IVRs, extensions mapping to devices line keys, Cisco spa504g provisioning, etc). Other device provisioning is in the pipe, but we have all 504Gs here and the provisioning code has been a tremendous help. Anyway, that is how I got to the odd work configuration, now I would like a discussion: My belief is that the "slim profile" of Centos will allow FS to handle greater load on a given hardware profile than could be handled by FS on Windows with the same hardware. I would like to AVOID the issues of security for this discussion, I firmly believe that you will provide better security on the platform that you understand the best. Let's just talk RAM, MIPS, NICs and FS performance and other issues I might be missing. Should a Windows guy go with FS on Windows or do you really get more bang for your buck in a Unix environment? I look forward to reading your thoughts. Sean
Tony demonstrated FreeSWITCH running 1000cps 30sec call duration with media for a total of 30K concurrent calls @ ClueCon last year (just a few weeks shy of a year ago) That being said, does that mean you need to choose Linux over Windows? No it does, use the the tools that fit your specific deployment requirements... For some people that means Windows, for others that means Linux or BSD or ${something_else_entirely}... But as Michael just said you are better off using the 64bit builds for more then just stack size reasons... On 7/26/12 12:00 AM, "Michael Giagnocavo" <mgg@giagnocavo.net> wrote:
I¹ve run FreeSWITCH under Linux and Windows. On Windows, I had no problems sustaining hundreds of calls/sec, over 2000 sessions (without media). And that was in a virtualized (Hyper-V) system with a Q6600 processor; I think about 2 cores were used.
One big caveat for 32-bit FS on Windows. FS isliberalwhen it comes to managing threads. It doesn¹t use lightweight threads or continuations, it really just spawns threads left and right. On Windows, the default stack is 1MB, so you can quickly run out of memory addresses on a 32-bit process. So, either run x64 FS, or adjust the stack size.
Unless you¹re really getting into high-end performance, then I highly doubt the OS matters. And even then, I haven¹t seen any benchmarks showing Linux with much higher performance for FreeSWITCH. The more important stuff is the rest of the stack, like fail2ban, OpenSIPS, iptables versus the not-so-amazing Windows Firewall, etc.
As others have said, definitely go with whatever makes you more comfortable.
-Michael
From: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org [mailto:freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org] On Behalf Of Sean Devoy Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 7:08 PM To: FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org Subject: [Freeswitch-users] What's better Unix ro Windows? LOL
I really hope this does not blow up into an ideological jihad, but I am curious what people think and if they have any evidence to support their claims. I am in fact a long time windows developer (anyone remember windows 2.2 that was hard shit). I have chosen what may be a unique approach to FS ³Configuration, Command and Control².
I started using FS by building it on Centos 5.n. Fighting, scratching and clawing it into a working multi-tenant switch. Looking back, everything I needed to do was in the email tree, I just didn¹t know what to ask. I have now moved FS on to a ³production² VPS server for $30 a month with amazing success. See it here: http://www.synapseglobal.com/voip_services.php It comes prebuilt with Centos and FS latest build compiled and ready to go. That¹s not why I am writing though. Their tech support is adamant that it can handle up 12 CONCURRENT CALLS at the base configuration.
I learned about IPTABLES and FAIL2BAN and like them very much. However, I still work better/faster/surer in my Windows environment. So, I have taken what some might think is the worst possible approach: Configure and Control my Centos FS Server from my own ASP.NET Web Application (hosted elsewhere). My approach is to use the socket interface to send commands and use programmatic SFTP to the SHH shell for XML file exchange. I am about 85% done with version 1.0 and very pleased with it. I hope to have customers be able to login and modify their own configurations (call routes, IVRs, extensions mapping to devices line keys, Cisco spa504g provisioning, etc). Other device provisioning is in the pipe, but we have all 504Gs here and the provisioning code has been a tremendous help.
Anyway, that is how I got to the odd work configuration, now I would like a discussion: My belief is that the ³slim profile² of Centos will allow FS to handle greater load on a given hardware profile than could be handled by FS on Windows with the same hardware. I would like to AVOID the issues of security for this discussion, I firmly believe that you will provide better security on the platform that you understand the best. Let¹s just talk RAM, MIPS, NICs and FS performance and other issues I might be missing.
Should a Windows guy go with FS on Windows or do you really get more bang for your buck in a Unix environment?
I look forward to reading your thoughts.
Sean
_________________________________________________________________________ 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
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
I believe the stack size in FS is automatically set to 240k for new threads, even on Windows. However, x64 is of course a much better choice anyway. /Peter 26 jul 2012 kl. 07:06 skrev "Michael Giagnocavo" <mgg@giagnocavo.net<mailto:mgg@giagnocavo.net>>: I’ve run FreeSWITCH under Linux and Windows. On Windows, I had no problems sustaining hundreds of calls/sec, over 2000 sessions (without media). And that was in a virtualized (Hyper-V) system with a Q6600 processor; I think about 2 cores were used. One big caveat for 32-bit FS on Windows. FS is…liberal…when it comes to managing threads. It doesn’t use lightweight threads or continuations, it really just spawns threads left and right. On Windows, the default stack is 1MB, so you can quickly run out of memory addresses on a 32-bit process. So, either run x64 FS, or adjust the stack size. Unless you’re really getting into high-end performance, then I highly doubt the OS matters. And even then, I haven’t seen any benchmarks showing Linux with much higher performance for FreeSWITCH. The more important stuff is the rest of the stack, like fail2ban, OpenSIPS, iptables versus the not-so-amazing Windows Firewall, etc. As others have said, definitely go with whatever makes you more comfortable. -Michael From: freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org<mailto:freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org> [mailto:freeswitch-users-bounces@lists.freeswitch.org] On Behalf Of Sean Devoy Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 7:08 PM To: FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org<mailto:FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org> Subject: [Freeswitch-users] What's better Unix ro Windows? LOL I really hope this does not blow up into an ideological jihad, but I am curious what people think and if they have any evidence to support their claims. I am in fact a long time windows developer (anyone remember windows 2.2 – that was hard shit). I have chosen what may be a unique approach to FS “Configuration, Command and Control”. I started using FS by building it on Centos 5.n. Fighting, scratching and clawing it into a working multi-tenant switch. Looking back, everything I needed to do was in the email tree, I just didn’t know what to ask. I have now moved FS on to a “production” VPS server for $30 a month with amazing success. See it here: http://www.synapseglobal.com/voip_services.php It comes prebuilt with Centos and FS latest build compiled and ready to go. That’s not why I am writing though. Their tech support is adamant that it can handle up 12 CONCURRENT CALLS at the base configuration. I learned about IPTABLES and FAIL2BAN and like them very much. However, I still work better/faster/surer in my Windows environment. So, I have taken what some might think is the worst possible approach: Configure and Control my Centos FS Server from my own ASP.NET<http://ASP.NET> Web Application (hosted elsewhere). My approach is to use the socket interface to send commands and use programmatic SFTP to the SHH shell for XML file exchange. I am about 85% done with version 1.0 and very pleased with it. I hope to have customers be able to login and modify their own configurations (call routes, IVRs, extensions mapping to devices line keys, Cisco spa504g provisioning, etc). Other device provisioning is in the pipe, but we have all 504Gs here and the provisioning code has been a tremendous help. Anyway, that is how I got to the odd work configuration, now I would like a discussion: My belief is that the “slim profile” of Centos will allow FS to handle greater load on a given hardware profile than could be handled by FS on Windows with the same hardware. I would like to AVOID the issues of security for this discussion, I firmly believe that you will provide better security on the platform that you understand the best. Let’s just talk RAM, MIPS, NICs and FS performance and other issues I might be missing. Should a Windows guy go with FS on Windows or do you really get more bang for your buck in a Unix environment? I look forward to reading your thoughts. Sean !DSPAM:5010cd0632761292282155! _________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org<mailto: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 Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012 FreeSWITCH-users mailing list FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org<mailto: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 !DSPAM:5010cd0632761292282155!
you want a server platform on your server, in the first place. Also you don't want a desktop GUI to manage your server. [/sarcasm]
________________________________ From: Sean Devoy <sdevoy@bizfocused.com> To: FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 3:07 AM Subject: [Freeswitch-users] What's better Unix ro Windows? LOL
I really hope this does not blow up into an ideological jihad, but I am curious what people think and if they have any evidence to support their claims. I am in fact a long time windows developer (anyone remember windows 2.2 – that was hard shit). I have chosen what may be a unique approach to FS “Configuration, Command and Control”. I started using FS by building it on Centos 5.n. Fighting, scratching and clawing it into a working multi-tenant switch. Looking back, everything I needed to do was in the email tree, I just didn’t know what to ask. I have now moved FS on to a “production” VPS server for $30 a month with amazing success. See it here: http://www.synapseglobal.com/voip_services.php It comes prebuilt with Centos and FS latest build compiled and ready to go. That’s not why I am writing though. Their tech support is adamant that it can handle up 12 CONCURRENT CALLS at the base configuration. I learned about IPTABLES and FAIL2BAN and like them very much. However, I still work better/faster/surer in my Windows environment. So, I have taken what some might think is the worst possible approach: Configure and Control my Centos FS Server from my own ASP.NET Web Application (hosted elsewhere). My approach is to use the socket interface to send commands and use programmatic SFTP to the SHH shell for XML file exchange. I am about 85% done with version 1.0 and very pleased with it. I hope to have customers be able to login and modify their own configurations (call routes, IVRs, extensions mapping to devices line keys, Cisco spa504g provisioning, etc). Other device provisioning is in the pipe, but we have all 504Gs here and the provisioning code has been a tremendous help. Anyway, that is how I got to the odd work configuration, now I would like a discussion: My belief is that the “slim profile” of Centos will allow FS to handle greater load on a given hardware profile than could be handled by FS on Windows with the same hardware. I would like to AVOID the issues of security for this discussion, I firmly believe that you will provide better security on the platform that you understand the best. Let’s just talk RAM, MIPS, NICs and FS performance and other issues I might be missing. Should a Windows guy go with FS on Windows or do you really get more bang for your buck in a Unix environment? I look forward to reading your thoughts. Sean _________________________________________________________________________ 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
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
I've been running FS both on Windows and Linux, mostly on Windows though. I believe the best choice is the OS you know the best. FS performs well on both platforms, so I think you are more likely to get the Windows box running better then a Linux box, since you are more familiar with it. I do recommend at least Windows 2008 though, since older versions doesn't have as exact timing in the kernel. Windows 2008 R2 with 64-bit FS i the best choice. /Peter 26 jul 2012 kl. 03:17 skrev "Sean Devoy" <sdevoy@bizfocused.com<mailto:sdevoy@bizfocused.com>>: I really hope this does not blow up into an ideological jihad, but I am curious what people think and if they have any evidence to support their claims. I am in fact a long time windows developer (anyone remember windows 2.2 – that was hard shit). I have chosen what may be a unique approach to FS “Configuration, Command and Control”. I started using FS by building it on Centos 5.n. Fighting, scratching and clawing it into a working multi-tenant switch. Looking back, everything I needed to do was in the email tree, I just didn’t know what to ask. I have now moved FS on to a “production” VPS server for $30 a month with amazing success. See it here: http://www.synapseglobal.com/voip_services.php It comes prebuilt with Centos and FS latest build compiled and ready to go. That’s not why I am writing though. Their tech support is adamant that it can handle up 12 CONCURRENT CALLS at the base configuration. I learned about IPTABLES and FAIL2BAN and like them very much. However, I still work better/faster/surer in my Windows environment. So, I have taken what some might think is the worst possible approach: Configure and Control my Centos FS Server from my own ASP.NET<http://ASP.NET> Web Application (hosted elsewhere). My approach is to use the socket interface to send commands and use programmatic SFTP to the SHH shell for XML file exchange. I am about 85% done with version 1.0 and very pleased with it. I hope to have customers be able to login and modify their own configurations (call routes, IVRs, extensions mapping to devices line keys, Cisco spa504g provisioning, etc). Other device provisioning is in the pipe, but we have all 504Gs here and the provisioning code has been a tremendous help. Anyway, that is how I got to the odd work configuration, now I would like a discussion: My belief is that the “slim profile” of Centos will allow FS to handle greater load on a given hardware profile than could be handled by FS on Windows with the same hardware. I would like to AVOID the issues of security for this discussion, I firmly believe that you will provide better security on the platform that you understand the best. Let’s just talk RAM, MIPS, NICs and FS performance and other issues I might be missing. Should a Windows guy go with FS on Windows or do you really get more bang for your buck in a Unix environment? I look forward to reading your thoughts. Sean !DSPAM:5010972032761429566116! _________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org<mailto: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 Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012 FreeSWITCH-users mailing list FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org<mailto: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 !DSPAM:5010972032761429566116!
tl;dr: I find maintenance, compiling, and low-level system information much easier in *nix. I'd just like to add a few things: I developed all my "tech expertise" on windows until the age of ~23. I've only been using Linux a year, but I can't imagine doing most of this stuff as easily on windows. Even on my Ubuntu desktop, I'm constantly in the terminal wget'ing or git cloning some source code, make'ing it, rsync'ing from/to my servers, or just popping up a terminal windows to manage things on my server... e.g. checking ram or CPU usage is just a few characters away ('free -m') A friend was bugging me to use windows and after installing it, I was having a really hard time even with cygwin to get all the same terminal options. There's just so many sys-admin tasks that are just easier with the CLI (and then it's great to have the same flexibility to do that on your desktop, too.) I used to use sshfs heavily to mount my server over ssh as a local drive, but there was a bit of lag when getting folder lists or saving -- which I remember is better than sftp anyway. I now have git repos of everything I usually manage, and use Salt-stack for configuration management (again, config fed via git), so to make most changes I just edit a local git repo and git push to my server over SSH. I know you can replicate this on windows, but not nearly as easily... -Avi
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Avi Marcus <avi@avimarcus.net> wrote:
I now have git repos of everything I usually manage, and use Salt-stack for configuration management (again, config fed via git), so to make most changes I just edit a local git repo and git push to my server over SSH.
Another Salt user, eh? That's some good stuff. We abandoned our homegrown solution and moved to Salt. It's wicked nice for the kind of setups that we typically deploy FreeSWITCH in. Best, Gabe
A few things you should also note: If you're running a low end system, that is not heavy on ram and CPU, forget about windows. This is also coming from a windows person. However if you are using a high end system, then you should have no problem running FS under windows, and depending on your application, it may out perform the *ix box. With that said, Windows8/Server 2012 are about 1 week away from RTM. FS running on Server 2012RC handles about 25% more load then the equivlent box running Server 2008 R2. Also much better support for Server Core (No GUI) on 2012, then 2008 R2. FS can be installed on 2008 R2 core, however it's a real pain in the ass, where it's simple on 2012 Core. I also have a reduced memory footprint on 2012Core and a system processing about 2000 sessions, at 50 CPS, running my softswitch module, and SQL installed on the same box runs in about 880mb of ram. So if you're going to try it on windows, you may want to hold out for a week, till the official release of Server 2012. --Dave _____ From: Avi Marcus [mailto:avi@avimarcus.net] To: FreeSWITCH Users Help [mailto:freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org] Sent: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:00:40 -0700 Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] What's better Unix ro Windows? LOL tl;dr: I find maintenance, compiling, and low-level system information much easier in *nix. I'd just like to add a few things: I developed all my "tech expertise" on windows until the age of ~23. I've only been using Linux a year, but I can't imagine doing most of this stuff as easily on windows. Even on my Ubuntu desktop, I'm constantly in the terminal wget'ing or git cloning some source code, make'ing it, rsync'ing from/to my servers, or just popping up a terminal windows to manage things on my server... e.g. checking ram or CPU usage is just a few characters away ('free -m') A friend was bugging me to use windows and after installing it, I was having a really hard time even with cygwin to get all the same terminal options. There's just so many sys-admin tasks that are just easier with the CLI (and then it's great to have the same flexibility to do that on your desktop, too.) I used to use sshfs heavily to mount my server over ssh as a local drive, but there was a bit of lag when getting folder lists or saving -- which I remember is better than sftp anyway. I now have git repos of everything I usually manage, and use Salt-stack for configuration management (again, config fed via git), so to make most changes I just edit a local git repo and git push to my server over SSH. I know you can replicate this on windows, but not nearly as easily... -Avi
If everything you are doing is via ESL and remote control, it won't matter too much to you which one you run. If you already have windows stuff you feel comfortable deploying its fine. I lean to Linux just because I am most agile there and I tend to do most of my dev on ssh terms and I have a ton of boxes I can control and jump between. Also I can get to them from nearly any pc around me without slow rdp type stuff (nxwin is pretty fricken fast tho) Raw performance, I would say windows might have a minor disadvantage because there is a lot of compatibility layers between top level calls and resulting operations. What might be a native call in Linux might be a slower drop-in replacement in Win. We can only control so much of this since we have tons of depends that all use their own method for portability. I think the call volume and stress on the server needed to measure the difference is fairly high in the many hundreds of calls. So bottom line, try it. It should work fine, if it doesn't ask here, just make sure you mention Windows in the subject to attract the right responses. On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Dave R. Kompel <drk@drkngs.net> wrote:
A few things you should also note:
If you're running a low end system, that is not heavy on ram and CPU, forget about windows. This is also coming from a windows person. However if you are using a high end system, then you should have no problem running FS under windows, and depending on your application, it may out perform the *ix box.
With that said, Windows8/Server 2012 are about 1 week away from RTM. FS running on Server 2012RC handles about 25% more load then the equivlent box running Server 2008 R2. Also much better support for Server Core (No GUI) on 2012, then 2008 R2. FS can be installed on 2008 R2 core, however it's a real pain in the ass, where it's simple on 2012 Core.
I also have a reduced memory footprint on 2012Core and a system processing about 2000 sessions, at 50 CPS, running my softswitch module, and SQL installed on the same box runs in about 880mb of ram.
So if you're going to try it on windows, you may want to hold out for a week, till the official release of Server 2012.
--Dave
________________________________ From: Avi Marcus [mailto:avi@avimarcus.net] To: FreeSWITCH Users Help [mailto:freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org] Sent: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:00:40 -0700 Subject: Re: [Freeswitch-users] What's better Unix ro Windows? LOL
tl;dr: I find maintenance, compiling, and low-level system information much easier in *nix.
I'd just like to add a few things: I developed all my "tech expertise" on windows until the age of ~23. I've only been using Linux a year, but I can't imagine doing most of this stuff as easily on windows. Even on my Ubuntu desktop, I'm constantly in the terminal wget'ing or git cloning some source code, make'ing it, rsync'ing from/to my servers, or just popping up a terminal windows to manage things on my server... e.g. checking ram or CPU usage is just a few characters away ('free -m')
A friend was bugging me to use windows and after installing it, I was having a really hard time even with cygwin to get all the same terminal options. There's just so many sys-admin tasks that are just easier with the CLI (and then it's great to have the same flexibility to do that on your desktop, too.)
I used to use sshfs heavily to mount my server over ssh as a local drive, but there was a bit of lag when getting folder lists or saving -- which I remember is better than sftp anyway. I now have git repos of everything I usually manage, and use Salt-stack for configuration management (again, config fed via git), so to make most changes I just edit a local git repo and git push to my server over SSH. I know you can replicate this on windows, but not nearly as easily...
-Avi
_________________________________________________________________________ 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
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
-- Anthony Minessale II FreeSWITCH http://www.freeswitch.org/ ClueCon http://www.cluecon.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/FreeSWITCH_wire AIM: anthm MSN:anthony_minessale@hotmail.com GTALK/JABBER/PAYPAL:anthony.minessale@gmail.com IRC: irc.freenode.net #freeswitch FreeSWITCH Developer Conference sip:888@conference.freeswitch.org googletalk:conf+888@conference.freeswitch.org pstn:+19193869900
Or pussies like me use nano. Brian Foster Endigo Computer LLC Sent from a mobile device. On Jul 26, 2012 8:02 PM, "Chris Mylonas" <chris@opencsta.org> wrote:
I tend to do most of my dev on ssh terms
v.interesting. how the hell do you manage that?
emacs/vim?
_________________________________________________________________________ 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
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
most of freeswitch has been developedin an ssh terminal using screen and emacs... Ken Sent from my iPad On Jul 26, 2012, at 7:01 PM, Chris Mylonas <chris@opencsta.org> wrote:
I tend to do most of my dev on ssh terms
v.interesting. how the hell do you manage that?
emacs/vim?
_________________________________________________________________________ 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
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
On Jul 26, 2012 7:40 PM, "Ken Rice" <krice@freeswitch.org> wrote:
most of freeswitch has been developedin an ssh terminal using screen and
emacs... Yep, and it still is every day!
Ken Sent from my iPad
On Jul 26, 2012, at 7:01 PM, Chris Mylonas <chris@opencsta.org> wrote:
I tend to do most of my dev on ssh terms
v.interesting. how the hell do you manage that?
emacs/vim?
_________________________________________________________________________
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
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
Then again, some parts were fixed in MSVC 2010 :P On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Anthony Minessale <anthony.minessale@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 26, 2012 7:40 PM, "Ken Rice" <krice@freeswitch.org> wrote:
most of freeswitch has been developedin an ssh terminal using screen and emacs...
Yep, and it still is every day!
Ken Sent from my iPad
On Jul 26, 2012, at 7:01 PM, Chris Mylonas <chris@opencsta.org> wrote:
I tend to do most of my dev on ssh terms
v.interesting. how the hell do you manage that?
emacs/vim?
_________________________________________________________________________ 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
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
I prefer GNU Midnight Commander editor in screen terminal window over ssh (can't kill DOS Norton Commander circa 1988 inside me :-) On Friday 27 July 2012 16:48:48 Anthony Minessale wrote:
On Jul 26, 2012 7:40 PM, "Ken Rice" <krice@freeswitch.org> wrote:
most of freeswitch has been developedin an ssh terminal using screen and
emacs...
Yep, and it still is every day!
Ken Sent from my iPad
On Jul 26, 2012, at 7:01 PM, Chris Mylonas <chris@opencsta.org> wrote:
I tend to do most of my dev on ssh terms
v.interesting. how the hell do you manage that?
emacs/vim?
_________________________________________________________________________
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
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
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 (15)
-
Anthony Minessale
-
Avi Marcus
-
Brian Foster
-
Chris Mylonas
-
curriegrad2004
-
Dave R. Kompel
-
Gabriel Gunderson
-
Ken Rice
-
Michael Giagnocavo
-
Peter Olsson
-
Roger Castaldo
-
Sean Devoy
-
Sergey Okhapkin
-
Stanislav Sinyagin
-
Timothy Bolton