Reviews:
 ·voip.ms
| reply to MartinM
Re: [Voip.ms] Survey / Feedback on restructuring Geo Locations. I think if you'd be better able to handle emergencies and deal with growth in a more organized fashion, that "super pops" might well be the way to go.
Though I notice that London isn't in the list of POP's that you are considering keeping. Does this mean that you're considering giving up your European foothold?
One other thing I would strongly urge you to consider if a consolidation of POP's is in the cards. Automatic fallover in case a particular POP goes down and one central place for all voicemail for the POP's.
I might well have tried more "POP" testing instead of sticking it out on Montreal2 if it weren't for the fact that I would have to record a VM greeting for every POP I tried.
NefCanuck |
|
gweidenh
join:2002-05-18
Houston, TX
kudos:1 | Go with Dallas for your Texas location.
Most Texas ISP traffic is routed through Dallas before it hits the wild wonderful internet. |
|
 gerick
join:2001-01-17
San Antonio, TX | said by gweidenh:Go with Dallas for your Texas location.
Most Texas ISP traffic is routed through Dallas before it hits the wild wonderful internet.
Ditto this. Anytime I check speeds with AT&T, it is always shorter ping time from San Antonio or Austin to Dallas than it is to Houston. I think that there are larger pipes out of Dallas. |
|
| reply to NefCanuck
said by NefCanuck:One other thing I would strongly urge you to consider if a consolidation of POP's is in the cards. Automatic fallover in case a particular POP goes down and one central place for all voicemail for the POP's.
Dittos to this. Even now, when we "server-hop", or when you reroute when a server is down, the voice mail issue becomes a problem. However you do it, the same voice mail accounts need to be accessible from all servers. The same is true for Internal extensions - they should be able to work across servers. And automatic failover would also provide some additional peace of mind. |
|
