5 Apr
2024
5 Apr
'24
1:36 p.m.
Hello,
you should be able to decrease the private memory substantially, as this is per process.
This much is never needed.
On the other hand, you should probably increase the shared memory if you are having a lot
of transactions going on, TLS etc.. This is per server, so you can configure more.
Cheers,
Henning
From: Sergio Charrua via sr-users <sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org>
Sent: Freitag, 5. April 2024 11:45
To: Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List <sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org>
Cc: Sergio Charrua <sergio.charrua(a)voip.pt>
Subject: [SR-Users] Re: low performance with no apparent reason
Thank you all for helping! I wasn't expecting such a large number of replies!
I ended up partially solving the issue with a different approach.
Modifying the size of the UDP Buffer did not reveal any improvement. However, modifying
the memory management did improve a lot: from 330 CPS to 1800 CPS in stateful mode.
So, starting kamailio with the following command:
kamailio -M 256 -m 128 -f <script.cfg>
did the trick! And the VM is still running with 6 vCPU.
Still very far from the test results described in
https://www.kamailio.org/docs/openser-performance-tests/#tm-tests-c but a lot better and
meets our requirements
Thanks guys for your help! Greatly appreciated!
Sérgio Charrua
On Sun, Mar 24, 2024 at 4:28 PM Alex Balashov via sr-users
<sr-users@lists.kamailio.org<mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>> wrote:
Not really related to the ongoing discussion, but:
Going to that kind of CPS might exceed the natural limits of all but the most exquisitely
tuned execution environments. It probably wouldn't work at all on the average
moderately oversubscribed public cloud VM, even a generously resourced one.
Once you get to that point, you might be better off just scaling horizontally.
-- Alex
On Mar 23, 2024, at 11:26 PM, Ovidiu Sas
<osas@voipembedded.com<mailto:osas@voipembedded.com>> wrote:
It all depends on the hardware, but I noticed that after you pass 3-4k cps you run into
this kind of issues.
- ovidiu
On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 22:11 Alex Balashov via sr-users
<sr-users@lists.kamailio.org<mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org>> wrote:
--
Alex Balashov
Principal Consultant
Evariste Systems LLC
Web: https://evaristesys.com
Tel: +1-706-510-6800
__________________________________________________________
Kamailio - Users Mailing List - Non Commercial Discussions
To unsubscribe send an email to
sr-users-leave@lists.kamailio.org<mailto:sr-users-leave@lists.kamailio.org>
Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only to the sender!
Edit mailing list options or unsubscribe:
On Mar 23, 2024, at 9:30 PM, Ovidiu Sas
<osas@voipembedded.com<mailto:osas@voipembedded.com>> wrote:
In the end, we agree with each other and my feeling is that we are repeating the same
concept.
Yeah, I think that's mostly right.
In most of my deployments I don’t need to mess
with the udp queue size.
For high cps traffic, from my experience, it’s a must.
Although I don't deal with very high-CPS deployments (500-1000 CPS) much these days,
I used to, and my experiences there led me to the diametrically opposite conclusion: one
should never increase the UDP queue size, and if you find yourself doing that, you're
doing something wrong, _except_ in the occasional burst case we discussed.
You can be absolutely sure that when I first encountered the problem, my first impulse
was to increase the receive queue as high as it will go, then, gradually, to a lesser
extent. I ultimately found that the proper amount by which to raise it is 0. ;)
-- Alex
--
Alex Balashov
Principal Consultant
Evariste Systems LLC
Web: https://evaristesys.com
Tel: +1-706-510-6800
__________________________________________________________
Kamailio - Users Mailing List - Non Commercial Discussions
To unsubscribe send an email to
sr-users-leave@lists.kamailio.org<mailto:sr-users-leave@lists.kamailio.org>
Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only to the sender!
Edit mailing list options or unsubscribe: