Increasing AST_PBX_MAX_STACK

Hi list!

I'd like your opinion about increasing the AST_PBX_MAX_STACK
value, 
currently set to 128.

Although it is clearly enough in the 99% of the scenarios,
sometimes 
it could be a limit. So I am curious about how increasing to
256 or 
512, or even more, could affect the system performance.

Regards,
Alex




_________________________________________________________
Naviga e telefona senza limiti con Tiscali     
Scopri le promozioni Tiscali Adsl: navighi e telefoni senza
canone Telecom

http://abbonati.tisc
ali.it/adsl/


_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --

asterisk-dev mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev

On Tuesday 19 June 2007 09:02, kleis-asterisk-devtiscali.it wrote:
> I'd like your opinion about increasing the
AST_PBX_MAX_STACK value,
> currently set to 128.
>
> Although it is clearly enough in the 99% of the
scenarios, sometimes
> it could be a limit. So I am curious about how
increasing to 256 or
> 512, or even more, could affect the system
performance.

You have includes more than 128 levels DEEP?  Why?

This isn't about having more contexts, it's about how deep
you can nest
includes.  Even 10 levels deep borders on unmanageable; how
are you
going to manage 128 levels?

-- 
Tilghman

_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --

asterisk-dev mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev

Dear all,

   After updating our asterisk from 1.4.4 to 1.4.5 we have
seen that our 
billing application doesn't work.  The reason, is that in
the cdr->dst 
instead of having the  channel->macroexten (that
corresponds to 
$) , we have the channel->exten (that, in our
case, correspongs 
to 's').

   After watching the code we found some changes in
main/cdr.c:
 +879,9
-888,13 

                        /* Copy account code et-al */
                        ast_copy_string(cdr->accountcode,

c->accountcode, sizeof(cdr->accountcode));
-                       /* Destination information */ /* XXX
privilege 
macro* ? */
-                       ast_copy_string(cdr->dst,
S_OR(c->macroexten, 
c->exten), sizeof(cdr->dst));
-                       ast_copy_string(cdr->dcontext, 
S_OR(c->macrocontext, c->context),
sizeof(cdr->dcontext));
+                       if (!ast_check_hangup(c)) {
+                               /* Destination information
*/ /* XXX 
privilege macro* ? */
+                               ast_copy_string(cdr->dst,

S_OR(c->macroexten, c->exten), sizeof(cdr->dst));
+                              
ast_copy_string(cdr->dcontext, 
S_OR(c->macrocontext, c->context),
sizeof(cdr->dcontext));
+                       }

                }
        }

We found that changing the '!ast_check_hangup(c)' for 
'ast_check_hangup(c)' (without the !) it works as it should
(the main 
difference is the call to ast_cdr_update from the line 2416
in 
main/pbx.c)...

So, I'm not sure if there will be any problem with this
change... Or is 
this just a bug?


  best regards,


-- 
José Luis Ledesma
Tecnobe Tecnología S.L.


_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --

asterisk-dev mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev

Hi Tilghman.

Could you please try to use this one?

http://www.voiceone.
it/index.php

That is require over 128 includes not hierarical DEEP,if
administrator 
wants over 124 users.

BestRegards,

mack

Tilghman Lesher wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 June 2007 09:02, kleis-asterisk-devtiscali.it wrote:
>> I'd like your opinion about increasing the
AST_PBX_MAX_STACK value,
>> currently set to 128.
>>
>> Although it is clearly enough in the 99% of the
scenarios, sometimes
>> it could be a limit. So I am curious about how
increasing to 256 or
>> 512, or even more, could affect the system
performance.
> 
> You have includes more than 128 levels DEEP?  Why?
> 
> This isn't about having more contexts, it's about how
deep you can nest
> includes.  Even 10 levels deep borders on unmanageable;
how are you
> going to manage 128 levels?
> 


_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --

asterisk-dev mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev

Hi Jose,

Please see my patch in cdr.c posted on the "CDR
fixes--- Wait a
minute!! (LONG)" thread.

If you follow along the thread you'll see I had the same
problem,
followed the same investigations and found a fix.

Please also post on that thread when my fix fixes your
problem to
encourage murf to apply the patch to the repository.

Thanks,
Steve

_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --

asterisk-dev mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev

Hi,

Your patch worked correctly with my config (an seems more
logical than 
my patch) 

regards,

Stephen Davies escribió:
> Hi Jose,
>
> Please see my patch in cdr.c posted on the "CDR
fixes--- Wait a
> minute!! (LONG)" thread.
>
> If you follow along the thread you'll see I had the
same problem,
> followed the same investigations and found a fix.
>
> Please also post on that thread when my fix fixes your
problem to
> encourage murf to apply the patch to the repository.
>
> Thanks,
> Steve
>


-- 
José Luis Ledesma
Tecnobe Tecnología S.L.


_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.c
om--

asterisk-dev mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev