Hello,
When I run this:
kamctl fifo dlg_list | grep '^dialog' | wc -l
I get 38 dialogs.
When I run this:
sercmd -s unixs:/tmp/kamailio_ctl dlg.list | egrep '^hash' | wc -l
I get 8 dialogs, rain or shine.
Has anyone heard of this bug? Running the latest 3.3 pull...
Thanks,
-- Alex
I've racked my brain trying to figure out the difference between the implementation of rpc_print_dlgs() (and internal_rpc_print_dlg()) vs. mi_print_dlgs() (and internal_mi_print_dlg()), but I just can't.
Yet, for some reason, the MI function always shows the correct number of tracked calls (let's say 30-40), while the RPC function shows 6 to 8 at most. This has been confirmed on multiple deployments, and is consistently the case, although the amount of dialogs shown by the RPC function varies. However, it is always <= 8.
A little help please, if anyone has a moment?
On 04/26/2013 12:25 PM, Alex Balashov wrote:
Hello,
When I run this:
kamctl fifo dlg_list | grep '^dialog' | wc -lI get 38 dialogs.
When I run this:
sercmd -s unixs:/tmp/kamailio_ctl dlg.list | egrep '^hash' | wc -lI get 8 dialogs, rain or shine.
Has anyone heard of this bug? Running the latest 3.3 pull...
Thanks,
-- Alex
I noticed the mail, but had no time to look over it. Perhaps it will happen soon if nothing else is discovered meanwhile.
Cheers, Daniel
On 4/28/13 11:27 AM, Alex Balashov wrote:
I've racked my brain trying to figure out the difference between the implementation of rpc_print_dlgs() (and internal_rpc_print_dlg()) vs. mi_print_dlgs() (and internal_mi_print_dlg()), but I just can't.
Yet, for some reason, the MI function always shows the correct number of tracked calls (let's say 30-40), while the RPC function shows 6 to 8 at most. This has been confirmed on multiple deployments, and is consistently the case, although the amount of dialogs shown by the RPC function varies. However, it is always <= 8.
A little help please, if anyone has a moment?
On 04/26/2013 12:25 PM, Alex Balashov wrote:
Hello,
When I run this:
kamctl fifo dlg_list | grep '^dialog' | wc -lI get 38 dialogs.
When I run this:
sercmd -s unixs:/tmp/kamailio_ctl dlg.list | egrep '^hash' | wc -lI get 8 dialogs, rain or shine.
Has anyone heard of this bug? Running the latest 3.3 pull...
Thanks,
-- Alex
On 04/29/2013 04:41 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
I noticed the mail, but had no time to look over it. Perhaps it will happen soon if nothing else is discovered meanwhile.
Not a problem, Daniel, thank you for responding. I'll see if I can track it down on my own; this is open source, after all. Not everyone can stand on the shoulders of one giant. :-)
Has anyone had a chance to take a look at this? I have not been able to figure out the problem on my own, and I'm under very strong pressure to revert to using MI FIFO interface for everything, since the RPC interface "obviously doesn't work".
On 04/29/2013 04:43 AM, Alex Balashov wrote:
On 04/29/2013 04:41 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
I noticed the mail, but had no time to look over it. Perhaps it will happen soon if nothing else is discovered meanwhile.
Not a problem, Daniel, thank you for responding. I'll see if I can track it down on my own; this is open source, after all. Not everyone can stand on the shoulders of one giant. :-)
Hello,
just looked in the code for the rpc function and looks ok. Have you increased the buffers in ctl module?
Cheers, Daniel
On 5/20/13 11:52 AM, Alex Balashov wrote:
Has anyone had a chance to take a look at this? I have not been able to figure out the problem on my own, and I'm under very strong pressure to revert to using MI FIFO interface for everything, since the RPC interface "obviously doesn't work".
On 04/29/2013 04:43 AM, Alex Balashov wrote:
On 04/29/2013 04:41 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
I noticed the mail, but had no time to look over it. Perhaps it will happen soon if nothing else is discovered meanwhile.
Not a problem, Daniel, thank you for responding. I'll see if I can track it down on my own; this is open source, after all. Not everyone can stand on the shoulders of one giant. :-)
No, I have not. It seems I was not aware of this... let me try.
Daniel-Constantin Mierla miconda@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
just looked in the code for the rpc function and looks ok. Have you increased the buffers in ctl module?
Cheers, Daniel
On 5/20/13 11:52 AM, Alex Balashov wrote:
Has anyone had a chance to take a look at this? I have not been able
to figure out the problem on my own, and I'm under very strong pressure to revert to using MI FIFO interface for everything, since the RPC interface "obviously doesn't work".
On 04/29/2013 04:43 AM, Alex Balashov wrote:
On 04/29/2013 04:41 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
I noticed the mail, but had no time to look over it. Perhaps it
will
happen soon if nothing else is discovered meanwhile.
Not a problem, Daniel, thank you for responding. I'll see if I can track it down on my own; this is open source, after all. Not
everyone
can stand on the shoulders of one giant. :-)
-- Sent from my mobile, and thus lacking in the refinement one might expect from a fully fledged keyboard.
Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems LLC 235 E Ponce de Leon Ave Suite 106 Decatur, GA 30030 United States Tel: +1-678-954-0670 Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.alexbalashov.com
On May 20, 2013, at 10:49 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla miconda@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
just looked in the code for the rpc function and looks ok. Have you increased the buffers in ctl module?
Depending on the amount of output you're getting, it's more than that. I understand it's a relatively small amount in this case, but that may change. You may need to increase buffers in sercmd/kamcmd, too, and even then you're limited--on Linux, at least--by the values of some sysctl settings (net.core.rmem_max, net.core.wmem_max and net.unix.max_dgram_qlen).
andrew
On 5/20/13 11:52 AM, Alex Balashov wrote:
Has anyone had a chance to take a look at this? I have not been able to figure out the problem on my own, and I'm under very strong pressure to revert to using MI FIFO interface for everything, since the RPC interface "obviously doesn't work".
On 04/29/2013 04:43 AM, Alex Balashov wrote:
On 04/29/2013 04:41 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
I noticed the mail, but had no time to look over it. Perhaps it will happen soon if nothing else is discovered meanwhile.
Not a problem, Daniel, thank you for responding. I'll see if I can track it down on my own; this is open source, after all. Not everyone can stand on the shoulders of one giant. :-)
-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda Kamailio Advanced Training, San Francisco, USA - June 24-27, 2013
sr-dev mailing list sr-dev@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
Daniel et al,
Your suggestion to increase the buffer sizes does appear to have fixed the problem. I'm sorry for my stupidity; I know it's quite irritating when a user reports their own ineptitude as a so-called "bug". It's not a bug, just my failure to read docs.
Please accept my apologies!
-
Alex Balashov -
Andrew Mortensen -
Daniel-Constantin Mierla