| [Voip.ms] voip.ms New York outage The voip.ms New York server has been down for over an hour. My failover treatement on unreachable is not working. Calls are supposed to be routed to my cellphone. But incoming calls are getting a busy signal instead. Shouldn't this be working, even when the server is out? |
|
|
|
 sporkmedrop the crantini and move it, sisterPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ | I don't believe so - the DIDs are associated with that location and if it's down, there's nothing to forward your calls off somewhere else.
--
with every mistake we must surely be learning |
|
PX EliezerPremium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13 | reply to bluechalk
Seriously, just use the Houston server from now on.
[I use it and I'm in metro NY].
Contrary to what Tom Hanks said in the Apollo 13 movie, with Houston we DON'T have a problem. |
|
Reviews:
 ·voip.ms
| Hmmm, that makes this the third voip.ms New York server outage in 31 days. There were outages on the voip.ms New York server on May 26 and June 22 as well. During all of these outages I've been blissfully unaffected since I wasn't on the phone, but I have three other clients set up with voip.ms on the New York server. I've had no complaints from them either but I'm concerned that, eventually, the s*** will hit the fan.
Yes, yes...I could switch everybody to different servers, but I understand that voice mail is currently tied to the particular server location. IVR too? So I'd have to arrange to have voicemail and anything else moved, right? This would also mean remoting into my clients to reconfigure registrations on SIP phones.
Before I consider the hassle of switching servers, I notice that at least one voip.ms staffer, Peter, participates in these forums. I am hoping he will weigh in to explain why the 3 recent outages occurred and what steps, if any, voip.ms is taking to make such outages less likely going forward. |
|
Mangowww.toao.net
join:2008-12-25
Alberta
kudos:11 Reviews:
·Anveo
 ·Shaw
·AcroVoice
·Callcentric
·callwithus
·voip.ms
·FreePhoneLine
 ·TELUS
| No, IVR is not tied to a specific server. Only voicemail is.
said by borntochill:what steps, if any, voip.ms is taking to make such outages less likely going forward. Heh. |
|
| said by Mango:No, IVR is not tied to a specific server. Only voicemail is. Only voicemail? From what it appears, first getting to a server to apply the IVR/Voicemail/Failover/etc. is also key and is tied to a specific server (the one that the DID is pointed to). Please correct me if I'm wrong.
said by Mango:said by borntochill:what steps, if any, voip.ms is taking to make such outages less likely going forward. Heh. Very good question. Due to the current model, there are some things out of their control and I too would like to understand what steps are being taken or are planned.
I've been pretty happy with Voip.ms for the most part, but my usage is so low, I'm an easy customer to please. However, I have been burned in the past when I needed to use the service and the server that I was pointing to was unreachable. It took a bit to deduce where the problem resided (ATA, Internet, Server, PSTN path, etc.) and I ended up using my cell while troubleshooting (turned out that the data center had issues and no DNS failover had been setup yet), but I'd prefer to avoid any of those headaches all together (noting that QUALITY/STABILITY is already a priority).
I've added some monitoring scripts on my side to notify me of issues, but again, I'd rather them be non-existent or hidden from me. In fact, something as simple as having a mailing list of the outage notifications was recommended by a few folks (I know I mentioned it via the support page and I'm pretty sure others mentioned it here), but that's still not an option. That would certainly help the folks that might have an issue and think the problem may be on their side, but if we got an e-mail or SMS message from Voip.ms that it's a known issue, we'd know not to waste our time trying to troubleshoot on our side and use a work-around (either use another provider or try an alternate server if it's not a DID issue).
Can't beat the cost, but IMHO, they really need to come up with some ways to make failover for the recurring problems more automatic or find more stable environments for their servers. If the annoyances occurs more frequently, I'll likely move on (even though the porting costs will likely be more than very many months of typical usage), just to avoid the question I ask myself, "Will incoming/outgoing calls work properly this time"? |
|
Mangowww.toao.net
join:2008-12-25
Alberta
kudos:11 Reviews:
·Anveo
·Shaw
·AcroVoice
·Callcentric
·callwithus
·voip.ms
·FreePhoneLine
·TELUS
| said by A_VoIPer:In fact, something as simple as having a mailing list of the outage notifications That's not a bad idea, but it's not a solution. The solution is fixing the problem that makes the servers keep going down/becoming unreachable. I've got a cheap VPS I pay the price of a restaurant meal for that hasn't had a network issue since 2010.
The workaround - because technology isn't perfect, no matter how much money you throw at it - is automatic failover.
Both reducing the number of failures, and making unavoidable failures transparent to most end users would increase their perceived reliability exponentially. |
|
w1ve
join:2007-12-28
Nelson, NH | reply to A_VoIPer
I've been a voip.ms customer for two years... and, from a customer-service perspective, they have always been good. However, server issues and call quality have gone downhill over the past 6 months. I used to use them for outbound on the value route; that had a lot of issues; I switched to premium, and had enough issues that I've now started using flowroute for outbound... $0.098/min for premium quality, and it's rock solid. If the voip.ms continues it's downhill slide, I will probably port my DIDs to flowroute or anveo.
--
VoIP Geek/Customer of voip.ms, vitelity, flowroute, callcentric, localphone, didforsale, voicemeup among others/Asterisk-PIAF user/FreeSwitch app developer/Consulting |
|
Reviews:
·voip.ms
1 edit | reply to bluechalk
This is pretty disappointing. I've been complaining that they're falling behind in feature set, and they've been offering only the excuse that they're working on back-end improvements instead of what their customers are requesting.
This stuff sure makes me wonder how long they'll be around. |
|
DavesnothereNo-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
join:2009-06-15
START&Cogeco
kudos:6
3 edits | reply to Mango
said by Mango:....The workaround - because technology isn't perfect, no matter how much money you throw at it - is automatic failover.
Both reducing the number of failures, and making unavoidable failures transparent to most end users would increase their perceived reliability exponentially.
While we are on this topic/tangent, would this be the manner in which CallCentric does things ?
They only seem to provide us with settings for ONE server (even though I have gotten my hands on a list of a block of IP addresses for what would appear to be a group of auto-failover mirrors), and has CallCentric experienced perceivable recent outages ?
On the VOIP.MS site the other day, I logged in to see details about possible DIDs, and noticed a trouble log.
I looked at it and discovered, to my anxiety, that there are rather frequent entries for server outages similar to this one - for an hour or two here and there - and Montreal (their 'home town') fails as frequently as NYC - each multiple times this year alone.
OY !
--
We have only 2 things about which to worry :
(1) That things may never get back to normal
(2) That they already HAVE !
|
|
| reply to A_VoIPer
said by A_VoIPerIn : ...something as simple as having a mailing list of the outage notifications... I doubt it would ever get sent. For the first 15-30 minutes they would hold off to avoid alerting people who are not being affected by it (i.e. not making or receiving a call) and because they don't know how much longer the outage will last and they don't want people to have to change all their settings unnecessarily. After 30 or so minutes they would probably avoid sending an alert because it will likely be fixed very soon, or at least that is the latest estimate.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticising VOIP.MS for this, if I were sending the alert it would probably never be sent either, it's human nature.
What would help though is if they switched all traffic to another server IMMEDIATELY a problem was detected. Then start whatever investigation/remedial work is necessary.
--
DPC2100 - WRT610N - SPA2102 - Asterisk 1.8.10.0 on Xen Virtual Server
VoIP.MS - Voxbeam - Localphone - Numbergroup - IPKall - UKDDI |
|
Mangowww.toao.net
join:2008-12-25
Alberta
kudos:11 Reviews:
·Anveo
·Shaw
·AcroVoice
·Callcentric
·callwithus
·voip.ms
·FreePhoneLine
·TELUS
| reply to Davesnothere
Callcentric has many SBCs (which you may call servers) in a single location. Though they have no geographic redundancy, you could argue that this would not impact their reliability because Callcentric has historically been extremely reliable.
They do have automatic failover (DNS SRV) that will allow your device to register to a different SBC without human intervention, if one should go down or they should remove it from service. However, I suspect this is secondary to the fact that Callcentric simply doesn't "go down" very often. |
|
DavesnothereNo-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
join:2009-06-15
START&Cogeco
kudos:6
1 edit | said by Mango:Callcentric.... ....They do have automatic failover (DNS SRV) that will allow your device to register to a different SBC without human intervention, if one should go down or they should remove it from service. However, I suspect this is secondary to the fact that Callcentric simply doesn't "go down" very often.
Is that the type of failover functionality (DNS SRV) which some here are saying that VOIP.MS should add ?
I had previously noticed that VMS did not seem to be using that parameter in their settings.
Also, if this method is pretty much an on-the-fly DNS rerouting (as I understand it), then would it not also be fairly easy for CallCentric to put some of their SBCs in an geographically alternately located data centre, to become even more robust than they already seem to be ? |
|
Mangowww.toao.net
join:2008-12-25
Alberta
kudos:11 Reviews:
·Anveo
·Shaw
·AcroVoice
·Callcentric
·callwithus
·voip.ms
·FreePhoneLine
·TELUS
1 edit | In my opinion, DNS SRV is a good idea. It's not the whole picture, but it's definitely an important piece of the puzzle.
DNS SRV allows you to specify several servers or SBCs and assign them a priority and/or weight. If your device cannot reach the server in first priority, it will use the next one in the priority list.
The limitation is that calls in progress will still be cut off when a server goes down. That's why I say it's just a piece of the puzzle. But unless you're on a call when an issue arises, you will probably never know about it.
Edit: I should have mentioned one other limitation. If the server is not working properly but is still reachable, DNS SRV will probably not help. It's most likely to be effective when equipment is completely inoperable. |
|
DavesnothereNo-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
join:2009-06-15
START&Cogeco
kudos:6 | said by Mango:....But unless you're on a call when an issue arises, you will probably never know about it....
....hence the perceived reliability of which you spoke earlier. |
|
PX EliezerPremium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13 Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
·Optimum Voice
·Vitelity VOIP
·Gizmo5
| reply to Davesnothere
said by Davesnothere:....would it not also be fairly easy for CallCentric to put some of their SBCs in an geographically alternately located data centre, to become even more robust than they already seem to be ?
Their whole point is running their own shop.
"We're NOT co-located with any providers - we operate our own data-center (with all underlying infrastructure, under 24x7 video surveillance) with redundant air-conditioning and AC power-plants; our dual-redundant AC sources reside on the same AC power grid with NY stock exchange (which is just across Broadway from us). In fact, we provide co-location, IP and TDM connection as well as origination and termination services to many international operators....."
 |
|
PX EliezerPremium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13 Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
·Optimum Voice
·Vitelity VOIP
·Gizmo5
| said by PX Eliezer:Their whole point is running their own shop.
Should we draw up papers, or is a handshake good enough?
Certainly not good enough. But since I'm in a hurry, it'll have to do.
To get out of Casablanca and go to America....You're a lucky man.
My agreement with Sam is that he gets 25 percent of the profits. That still goes.
I happen to know he gets 10 percent. But he's worth 25.
Abdul, Carl and Sascha, they stay with the place or I don't sell.
Of course. Rick's wouldn't be Rick's without them.
Well, so long. Don't forget you owe Rick's 100 cartons of American cigarettes.
I shall remember to pay it to myself.
|
|
DavesnothereNo-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
join:2009-06-15
START&Cogeco
kudos:6 | reply to PX Eliezer
said by PX Eliezer:Their [CallCentric's] whole point is running their own shop.
At which they surely can boast a very good track record.
said by PX Eliezer:Hell, maybe they could run the server for Voip.MS.
There may have been a joke/poke in that statement, but also some truth.
It DOES seem that Voip.MS could learn some things from them. |
|
PX EliezerPremium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13 | Well, I think that good companies can learn from each other.
Voip.MS has [many] good things about it.
But they need to get these server issues settled down. |
|
Reviews:
·voip.ms
| said by PX Eliezer:Well, I think that good companies can learn from each other.
Voip.MS has [many] good things about it.
But they need to get these server issues settled down.
Agreed. I've set up clients on both voip.ms and CallCentric. I'm on the voip.ms New York server and I've been fortunate to have been completely unaffected by the outages, which I suppose isn't surprising since I think the total number of hours the New York server has been offline in the last 12 months has been under 5 hours altogether, i.e., an uptime rate of about 99.94%. I do understand that for some individuals and businesses, any downtime is a deal-breaker.
Unless there was a more protracted outage, or my clients became unhappy with their service, I'd be hard-pressed to switch over to Callcentric even as I recognize they are an excellent provider. Callcentric's feature set simply cannot hold a candle to voip.ms's. My clients depend upon features that voip.ms throws in for free which CallCentric doesn't even offer at all: multiple registrations (subaccounts), multiple voicemail boxes, IVR and DISA. CallCentric's pricing is substantially higher too, at least based on my usage patterns and those of my clients.
Still, I agree that DNS SRV failover and a unified voicemail system should be a top priority for voip.ms. The sooner the better. |
|
