sr-users

sr-users@lists.kamailio.org

37 participants
37510 discussions

Best Practices for Scaling Kamailio in a Large VoIP Deployment
by Maria Jonas 23 Jul '24

23 Jul '24

Hello Kamailio Community, I am currently working on a large scale VoIP deployment and would love to get insights on the best practices for scaling Kamailio. Our current setup handles a moderate volume of calls,,, but we’re expecting a significant increase in traffic soon. Specifically.., I am looking for advice on: -Optimizing Kamailio’s configuration for high availability and performance. -Efficiently managing load balancing and failover. -Recommended hardware specifications for large-scale operations. -Common pitfalls to avoid when scaling up. Any tips or resources you could share would be greatly appreciated. If you have experience with similar projects,,, I’d love to hear about your setups and any challenges you faced. Thank you! Maria <a href="https://www.igmguru.com/cloud-computing/aws-developer-certification-trainin…">aws</a>

1 0

SHM Memory leak?
by Ihor Olkhovskyi 23 Jul '24

23 Jul '24

Hello! I'm trying to get where all the SHM memory gone. For the moment I'm using these settings: -m 8192 -M 1024 which means 8G of SHM meory. Kamailio parameters are the following fork=yes children=8 tcp_children=12 enable_tls=yes enable_sctp=no tls_threads_mode=2 tcp_accept_no_cl=yes tcp_max_connections=63536 tls_max_connections=63536 tcp_accept_aliases=no tcp_async=yes tcp_connect_timeout=10 tcp_conn_wq_max=63536 tcp_crlf_ping=yes tcp_delayed_ack=yes tcp_fd_cache=yes tcp_keepalive=yes tcp_keepcnt=3 tcp_keepidle=30 tcp_keepintvl=10 tcp_linger2=30 tcp_rd_buf_size=80000 tcp_send_timeout=10 tcp_wq_blk_size=2100 tcp_wq_max=10485760 open_files_limit=63536 And having ~1000 TLS/WSS clients I'm getting this after 3 days of running: { "jsonrpc": "2.0", "result": [ "shmem:fragments = 2796", "shmem:free_size = 3737947072", (3.7 G) "shmem:max_used_size = 4857418512", (4.8 G) "shmem:real_used_size = 4851987520", "shmem:total_size = 8589934592", "shmem:used_size = 4838988096" (4.8 G) ], "id": 984479 } Means half of SHM memory is gone When running kamcmd mod.stats all shm I'm getting (output truncated for the largest values) Module: core { ... tcpconn_new(1201): 130669280 (0.13 G) ... Total: 131657632 (0.13 G) } Module: sl { ... Total: 7520 } Module: siptrace { ... Total: 13520 } Module: rr { Total: 0 } Module: dialog { ... Total: 146080 } Module: permissions { ... Total: 62144 } Module: htable { .... Total: 3359552 (3.3 M) } Module: rtpengine { ... Total: 31456 } Module: textopsx { Total: 0 } Module: tsilo { ... Total: 75072 } Module: tm { .... Total: 3459504 (3.4 M) } Module: usrloc { .... Total: 1217616 } Module: pua_dialoginfo { ... Total: 8720 } Module: pua { ... Total: 150848 } Module: pike { ... Total: 9504 } Module: websocket { wsconn_add(198): 54139856 (54 M) ... Total: 54148096 (54 M) } Module: debugger { ... Total: 21872 } Module: tmx { Total: 512 } Module: kex { .... Total: 1888 } Module: tls { ... ser_malloc(364): 87246112 (87 M) ... Total: 87997168 (87 M) } Module: secfilter { ... Total: 768 } Module: exec { ... Total: 16 } Module: dispatcher { ... Total: 2992 } Module: cfgutils { ... Total: 48 } Module: app_python3 { ... Total: 32 } So, I'm guessing, where all the memory gone? Is there any way to get more detailed info on SHM? Kamailio 5.8.2 -- Thanks in advance, Ihor

2 6

Not responding to OPTIONS if existing tcp connection
by Jon Bonilla (Manwe) 22 Jul '24

22 Jul '24

Hi all version 5.7.6 Debian 12 I'm having issues with a kamailio server not sending 200 to some OPTIONS requests. It does send 200 to some subscribers but not 100% of the time to 100% of subs. I have enabled debug=3 in that server and this is what I found: If the log says that it found existing tcp connection and it's reusing it I can't see the 200ok in a sngrep capture. Example: <core> [core/receive.c:126]: sip_check_fline(): first line indicates a SIP reply <core> [core/tcp_main.c:1722]: _tcpconn_find(): found connection by id: 2 <core> [core/tcp_main.c:2614]: tcpconn_send_put(): send from reader (360359 (18)), reusing fd <core> [core/tcp_main.c:2845]: tcpconn_do_send(): sending... <core> [core/tcp_main.c:2881]: tcpconn_do_send(): after real write: c= 0x7fb0faa893d8 n=384 fd=14 <core> [core/tcp_main.c:2882]: tcpconn_do_send(): buf=#012SIP/2.0 200 Keepalive#015#012Via: SIP/2.0/TCP 10.35.190.105:5060;branch=z9hG4bK15ebf764;rport=55894;received=1.1.1.186#015#012From: "Unknown" <sip:contesta01@10.35.190.105>;tag=as5311c3a7#015#012To: <sip: 1.1.1.138>;tag=054524a74bcccf444a0f08f67c5b7657.d07b5401#015#012Call-ID: 15dcd38c46f915576ded132a11d8ff4c@10.35.190.105:5060#015#012CSeq: 102 OPTIONS#015#012Server: aaa SBC#015#012Content-Length: 0#015#012#015#012 <core> [core/receive.c:531]: receive_msg(): request-route executed in: 302 usec On the other side, if kamailio doesn't find an existing tcp connection (at least nothing in the logs about that) I can see the 200 ok in sngrep. Example: <core> [core/receive.c:126]: sip_check_fline(): first line indicates a SIP reply <core> [core/receive.c:531]: receive_msg(): request-route executed in: 295 usec All subs use tcp. And the kamailio.cfg is very simple regarding OPTIONS: Sanity, check maxfwd and sl_send_reply(200). Any hints? cheers, Jon -- PekePBX, the multitenant PBX solution https://pekepbx.com

2 1

Drouting using TLS and domain names
by SAMUEL MOYA TINOCO 19 Jul '24

19 Jul '24

Hi everyone, I'm trying to configure drouting module but i'm not sure how to configure dr_gateways table to use domain names and TLS instead of IPs How should I do it? In dispatcher module is by using sips:domain but when I configure it like this I have problems to send invites (maybe I'm doing something wrong). Does anyone know how to configure it? Thanks in advance for your help Samuel Moya Tinoco Departamento de Sistemas y Redes Móvil: (+34) 606985997 smoya(a)vivelibre.es<mailto:smoya@vivelibre.es> [cid:image001.png@01DAD156.D8CFF170] Soluciones inteligentes para la autonomía personal

2 3

Possible Kamailio memmory leak - version 5.8.2
by Vanderlei Torres Batistela 18 Jul '24

18 Jul '24

Hello all, I am using a very simple scritp with corex module enabled . Normal calls works fine, but a scenario where INVITE does not receive response and the call is released with SIP 408 (request timeout) leads to memmory leak. I verified it making a lot of calls with this scenario and printing the shared memory (using kamcmd core.shmmem) . Its ocurred with modparam("corex", "nio_intercept", 1). If I modify to modparam("corex", "nio_intercept", 0) the memmory leak does not ocurr anymore. The problem also occurs in another scenario where the SIP Cancel message is not responded to. My script has this event route # event route event_route[network:msg] { xlog("L_INFO", "Dentro do Event_Route \n"); if (is_incoming()) { xlog("L_INFO", "Received message '$mb' \n"); $avp(msg) = $mb; xinfo("avp(msg) = $avp(msg)"); } else { xlog("L_INFO", "Sending message '$mb' \n"); $avp(msg) = $mb; }; } Test done wtih 4000 calls: [root@labcom070 kamailio]# kamctl stats shmem { "jsonrpc": "2.0", "result": [ "shmem:fragments = 900", "shmem:free_size = 6180368", "shmem:max_used_size = 66980272", "shmem:real_used_size = 60928496", "shmem:total_size = 67108864", "shmem:used_size = 54884944" ], "id": 393115 } [root@labcom070 kamailio]# kamcmd mod.stats all shm Module: core { create_avp(178): 52257504 counters_prefork_init(211): 53760 cfg_clone_str(132): 112 cfg_shmize(221): 832 main_loop(1381): 16 init_pt(104): 16 init_pt(103): 16 init_pt(102): 6224 cfg_register_ctx(47): 96 init_tcp(5197): 8192 init_tcp(5191): 32768 init_tcp(5182): 16 init_tcp(5175): 16 init_tcp(5167): 16 init_tcp(5161): 16 init_tcp(5149): 16 init_avps(92): 16 init_avps(91): 16 init_dst_blocklist(435): 16384 init_dst_blocklist(427): 16 timer_alloc(494): 96 init_dns_cache(368): 16 init_dns_cache(359): 16384 init_dns_cache(351): 16 init_dns_cache(343): 16 init_timer(264): 16 init_timer(263): 16384 init_timer(262): 16 init_timer(261): 16 init_timer(250): 16 init_timer(218): 16 init_timer(207): 278544 init_timer(206): 16 init_timer(194): 16 cfg_child_cb_new(832): 64 sr_cfg_init(371): 16 sr_cfg_init(364): 16 sr_cfg_init(356): 16 sr_cfg_init(344): 16 sr_cfg_init(332): 16 ksr_shutdown_phase_init(123): 16 rpc_hash_add(118): 16 qm_shm_lock_init(1463): 16 Total: 52687808 } I attached my kamailio script used and a log with one call using the command "kamcmd corex.shm_summary" with modparam("corex", "nio_intercept", 1) and modparam("corex", "nio_intercept", 0) Regards, Vanderlei

3 6

Re: Difference betwwen TM functions in KEMI
by Duarte Rocha 18 Jul '24

18 Jul '24

Hello Alex, You're totally right, that was the issue. Thank you so much for the help. Helpful as always. Cheers, Duarte Rocha

1 0

Difference betwwen TM functions in KEMI
by Duarte Rocha 17 Jul '24

17 Jul '24

Hello all, I'm using Kamailio with native script and KEMI in Javascript. I noticed that functions from the TM module can have different results if I call them on KEMI or Native script. Is this intended behaviour? Don't they share the state? In order to test this i made the following code : KEMI Code : function ksr_request_route() { try{ if ( KSR.is_method("BYE") ) { print.error("BYE Request KEMI BYE") KSR.route("exists_test") if(KSR.tm.t_exists()) { print.error("KEMI : Transaction exists") } else { print.error("KEMI : Transaction does not exist") } Native Code : route[exists_test] { if( t_exists()) { xerr("Native Script : Transaction exists \n"); } else { xerr("Native Script : Transaction does not exist \n"); } } I've also tried to change function call order but every time I get "Transaction does not exist" on native and "Transaction Exists" on KEMI. Is this intended behaviour? Should I only call tm functions in native or Kemi in order to have consistency ? Thanks in advance, Best Regards,

2 1

Dns record not alone?
by Pyry Aaltonen 17 Jul '24

17 Jul '24

Hi, I recently updated my testing env to 5.8.1 and after that I’ve been receiving dns_cache.c warning “record not alone”. I found out that it’s been added to quite recent commit: https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/commit/d8a35b3b6c837b36779e232b65fce61… And that’s probably the why I haven’t seen it before. As far as I know, I have no other problem with dns or anything else than the warning appearing in the logs 😊 I can’t quite get what the warning is about? Clearly refers to dns queries, and with debug I found out that maybe its somehow related to ip which has several domains to pointing it (and queried by one of those domains by this kamailio). Can it be something with the PTR-record? And this warning comes ones every hour, so probably when some ttl expires, and meanwhile the cache is ok with the situation. And as a background, I haven’t done any specific dns-configurations in my config, so settings should be pretty much in defaults. Any advice what I should fix here to get the warning disappear? -Pyry

2 1

Add a Header to CANCEL request
by sadik.oualla.mohamed＠gmail.com 17 Jul '24

17 Jul '24

Hello all, I am facing an issue with Kamailio when trying to add custom headers to CANCEL requests. My current configuration adds the "Reason" header perfectly: ``` if(!is_present_hf("Reason")){ $var(cause_request) = 31; append_hf("Reason: Q.850;cause=$var(cause_request)\r\n", "CSeq"); msg_apply_changes(); } ``` However, when I attempt to add headers like "X-Reason" or "TestHeader", they are not added: ``` if(!is_present_hf("Reason")){ $var(cause_request) = 31; append_hf("X-Reason: Q.850;cause=$var(cause_request)\r\n", "CSeq"); # or append_hf("TestHeader: Q.850;cause=$var(cause_request)\r\n", "CSeq"); msg_apply_changes(); #nothing changes in the relayed CANCEL request :-/ } ``` I've read in this discussion "https://lists.kamailio.org/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/sr-users@lists.kamailio…" that this might work if sending CANCEL in stateless mode, but I want to keep it stateful. Any suggestions on how to achieve this? Regards, Mohamed.

1 0

Changing ksr_tcp_accept_iplimit from default 1024
by Who AmI 16 Jul '24

16 Jul '24

Hi list, I hope you are all well? I am currently loadtesting some services internally and I am getting an odd error around TCP connections from the same source IP below: "/usr/sbin/kamailio[1806789]: CRITICAL: <core> [core/tcp_main.c:4459]: handle_new_connect(): hit the limit of connections per source IP (my_ip:39043) - rejecting" Its from the core the error so I was looking at the cookbooks and documentation but cannot get around this specific limit or find a configuration to tweak that fixes it. The limit only affects TCP (will affect TLS as well but I haven't got that far) and is 1024 it seems. Kamailio version is: 5.7.6 OS: Ubuntu 22.04 Things I have done so far: I have set limitNOFILE=65535 in the service file Set the tcp/tls_max_connections at 8192 (default is 2048) Increase the tcp_rd_buf_size to 16k+ The service I am using to loadtest is SIPp with flags "-t tn" for TCP multisocket as this service will have much more than 1024 concurrent TCP connections to it from a single source IP. I think I have missed something basic here as the devel and the source code references: "ksr_tcp_accept_iplimit" here at line 541: https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/blob/master/src/main.c#L541 I cannot find a way to change this with a configuration line it seems, am I being blind or is my only option to build from source and change this? Many Thanks, John.

2 2

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

sr-users