Re: [SR-Users] Is DMQ now the recommended way to do things?

I'm using DMQ in order to share : - htable - usrloc for usrloc seems everything working as expected. on htable I have noticed, after some stresstest made with sipp (25 cps / 600 concurrent calls) that one of the nodes (or sometimes both) eat a lot of cpu (300%) after stresstest ended [all processes idle except f4 dmq handlers]; I tried also to change some parameters on dmq module like worker_usleep with no changes at all.

At last, using kamailio in a kubernetes system I have several kamailio instances that pops-up and then tiers down with different ips; for this reason dmq seems not able to delete peers, adding, for every defunct node a warning like this : router-3 17(34) ERROR: dmq [notification_peer.c:599]: notification_resp_callback_f(): deleting server sip:172.28.1.211:5062;status=active because of failed request router-1 router-sr 17(33) ERROR: dmq [notification_peer.c:599]: notification_resp_callback_f(): deleting server sip:172.28.1.213:5062;status=active because of failed request Il giorno sab 26 gen 2019 alle ore 01:43 Alex Balashov < abalashov(a)evaristesys.com&gt; ha scritto: > I think the realistic answer is that it's getting to be that way. I > think DMQ is now the recommended way to share usrloc and htable across > multiple hosts. DMQ+dialog is still a work in progress. Not sure about > DMQ+some other new stuff. > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 04:21:43PM +0000, Canuck . wrote: > > Before DMQ there were other ways to do similar things. Is DMQ now > > considered the best way? Assuming I am using recent stable? > > > > Are there any good guides on clustering Kamailio? I am not finding a > > lot of good info on that subject. Specifically, for multi datacenter > > active active where things like floating IP's and keepalived are not > > really an option.