Suggestion Of Server Specifications For Asterisk

Home » Asterisk Users » Suggestion Of Server Specifications For Asterisk
Asterisk Users 14 Comments

What the minimum Server Specifications do I need to run
200 concurrent channels at the time with .WAV recording (MixMonitor)?

It will be connected via VOIP sip account.

Codec will be ulaw.

Which UK dedicated server provider do you recommend and how much bandwidth do I need?


14 thoughts on - Suggestion Of Server Specifications For Asterisk

  • The busiest server I am managing reaches 120 concurrent channels (with mixed recording). It is a dual processor, dual core Intel 5150 with 16 GB
    of ram and raid sas controller. The load reaches rarely 3.0. Having to double the number of channels and due to the 100% call recordings, I’ll go with a 16 cores. Memory will not a big issue and so the disk. 64kbit/s x 200 (even adding the overhead of the SIP and IP) will be under 20 Mbit/s, so a 100 Mbit/s will be fine.

    About UK provider, I can’t be of any help… I know very good providers in Germany and Canada, where I am laying my servers, but none in UK.


    2012/8/4 Shahid H

  • It is not necessary to use an high performance drive. The bottleneck will be the processor, not the disk. A single disk can handle ten times the load of 200 ulaw channels.

    Leandro Il giorno 04/ago/2012 12:39, “Shahid H” ha scritto:

  • Ahh I see. So I might as well get a normal sata disk?

    I thought I/O will be Bottleneck as well because 200 channels WAV
    recordings to disk at the same time.

    Which intel model 16 cores do you recommend? how about 12 cores?


  • A single sata disk will be an unacceptable single point of failure. Get three disks and get in raid5 configuration. You’ll gain in safety and speed. About the CPU model, I am a bit lazy, check the latest CPU released from intel or amd (I love amd cpu).

    Leandro Il giorno 04/ago/2012 14:30, “Shahid H” ha scritto:

  • Leandro Dardini writes:

    RAID-5 is slower than single disks when it comes to write IOPS (a commit is not done until the slowest disk has answered). Avoid it for write heavy workloads at all costs unless you are writing sequentially in one file with write caching enabled.


  • Instead of buying expensive disk.. I might setup a ramdisk (about 2GB) to do 200 calls recordings.

  • Benny is right, if writes are smaller than the stripe size, there is no gain in speed in using raid5. Not only, but you can have lower performance than a single disk.

    The ramdisk can be a good idea, but if the load is somewhat constant, you end only moving the slow write ahead of time. 200 calls at 64kbit/s are just 1.5 Mbyte/s … even the slowest disk can accomplish this.


    2012/8/4 Shahid H

  • Un-top-posting…

    Won’t 200 simultaneous calls result in a lot of ‘head thrashing’ that would be avoided by staging the recordings to some form of non-mechanical storage and then copying the the recording at the completion of the call?

  • Steve Edwards writes:

    The extX family of file systems probably will not be clever enough to try to unfragment the writes; they will likely all end up in one long fragmented stream. This is exactly what you want if you do not expect to actually listen to more than a small fraction of the recordings.

    If you do expect to listen to most of the recordings, copying them after they have been written is a great idea. Especially if you have an off-peak time where the disk is idle anyway, or by placing them on RAM-disk if you can afford to lose some.

    Frankly I would not worry too much, just use reasonably modern hardware with support for write barriers, enable write caching, use a not-too-clever filesystem, and go RAID-1 on just two disks.

    You could make a ridiculously fast system with NILFS2 and SSD though…


  • You want some form of raid for redundancy. I usually go with two 15K SAS
    drives in raid 1 or four 7.2k SATA drives in raid 10. Performance between the two should be similar. With drives being as cheap as they are skip raid


  • That’s how we do it – write to a memory based (ramdisk) disk then write to HDD upon call completion. We haven’t tried a SSD but that may be necessary depending on your call volumes.

  • I have bought a new server today:

    i7-2600 CPU, 8GB and 2 x 256GB SSDs. 100Mbit Connection.

    I hope CPU is powerful enough for 200 concurrent calls.