Sounds more like a bad card than bad code. I ran 3.5.109 for several weeks without any problem like that. I did have one customer that started getting lost-carrier disconnects really bad. In 2 months prior, he had not had a single disconnect, but at the exact time I upgraded from 3.5.105 to 3.5.109 he started having problems. For that reason, I just got all my cards re-flashed to 3.5.105 and his problems are gone now. We are running V.92 and the customer has a V.92 modem, so I don't know if the issue was directly related to V92 or not, but I may have to stay at 3.5.105 until something better comes along. - Joel -----Original Message----- From: VCI Help Desk [mailto:admin@vci.net] Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 12:52 PM To: USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com Subject: [USR-TC] 3.5.109 DSP code Hi, I have a new TC unit I recently purchase was am attempting to get it up and running with new code. I upgraded the DSP cards from 3.5.12 to 3.5.109 as recommended by someone. I have two operational TCs running DSP code 3.1.7 & 2.0.51 My question is does anyone have any recommendations as to what DSP code versions are better? We don't want to run the V92 code because it doesn't seem reliable. We currently have V92 turned off on all of our DSPs. We did a live test this morning with the 3.5.109 software and it ran fine for a while. After a short period of time the #2 card seemed to freeze. Our PRIs started giving busy signals. So we moved the PRIs to another server. The #2 card in this TC (running ver 3.5.109) still had the modem utilization lights on indicating it had about 50% utilization which was incorrect. This card seems to be where the busy signal was coming from. This problem make me wonder about this particular version of code. Bill Dunn _______________________________________________ USR-TC mailing list USR-TC@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/usr-tc