Re: [Devel] Re: [Serusers] Re: Fw: [Users] TM : retransmission timers

small typo below... Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote: >Hi Klaus, > >as the discussion about ser's improvements bounces again to openser, I >had to do a bit of digging to provide a correct answer to openser's >users. > >yes, there were some improvements did by Andrei to TM, mainly in timer >implementation. As you were wondering, the 0.9.6 SER should be >relatively close to openser 0.9.4 as TM performance and merging the >results from Vaclav with Andrei tests before the timer improvement in >SER 0.9.6, seams to be correct. See: > http://lists.iptel.org/pipermail/serdev/2005-December/006583.html > >After this improvement, SER's 0.9.6 performances dramatically >increased, but unfortunately, according to our tests it is also >dramatically wrong. TM timers are not working correctly when variable >timeouts are used in SER. > >With the improvement, the following scenario gets broken - 3 calls >only, no load, default cfg: > >CALL 1: has 60 secs timeout for Final_response_timeout - nobody >answers, still ringing >in less than 2 secs -> >CALL 2: has 70 secs timeout - it is immediately answered. >in less than 2 secs -> >CALL 3: has 10 secs timeout for Final_response_timeout - nobody >answers, ringing. > >Of course, everybody expects that CALL3 will timeout before CALL1 >(with more than 40 secs), but in SER 0.9.6 (latest stable for the last >2 years), this will not happened - both CALL3 and CALL1 will timeout >simultaneously when the CALL3 timer hits.

^^ it is CALL1 > >It is a simple test that anybody can easily reproduce. > >A lot of people are saying that OpenSER is a less stable, but dynamic >version of SER. Results say something else here. > >"performance" should have no penalty over "stability", I would say. > >This bug was not in the devel tree, but it is in the current SER >0.9.6 stable version for ~ 1 year. > >In this case I would say it is not relevant how many CPS you have if >you cannot handle them correctly.