Ok, here's a kind of OT question for everyone out there. Is there any point to using db_mode 1 or 2 since t_replicate exists? Seems kind of pointless, unless I'm just missing something.. :)
Matt
-----Original Message----- From: Nils Ohlmeier [mailto:lists@ohlmeier.org] Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 9:04 AM To: Matt Schulte Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org; Jan Janak; Marian Dumitru Subject: Re: [Serusers] usrloc and replication
Please check with serctl if the contacts in memory already have non-zero rep values. I think the db-mode should have no effect on your problem. But I#m not up-to-date with the code any more.
Nils
On Monday 28 March 2005 16:32, Matt Schulte wrote:
Would db_mode 2 vs. 1 have any effect on this? My rep fields are still
non-zero, would posting my config even help?
Matt
-----Original Message----- From: Nils Ohlmeier [mailto:lists@ohlmeier.org] Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 8:49 PM To: serusers@lists.iptel.org Cc: Matt Schulte; Jan Janak; Marian Dumitru Subject: Re: [Serusers] usrloc and replication
The module was named replicator and the code was never public available because the code was non-free. The documentation behind it can be found in my diploma thesis. As Jan already said it's history. If you want to fix your running system just set all the replication values in your database to zero and restart your SER. Its very unlikely that
these
values were changed by SER at any time.
Nils
On Saturday 26 March 2005 22:52, Matt Schulte wrote:
I see, so if I set the replication value to non-zero, where would that
be done at? I didn't do it intentionally of course. Are you suggesting
a config thing or more manual such as editing the tables in the db? What was the module name written by Nils? Was it included in any versions of ser? Maybe I'm running this by accident, from what I can
tell though my config is pretty standard.Thanks much..
Matt
-----Original Message----- From: Jan Janak [mailto:jan@iptel.org] Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 2:06 PM To: Marian Dumitru Cc: Matt Schulte; serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] usrloc and replication
There was another SER module written by Nils Ohlmeier that replicated the user location contacts to a set of servers and kept the replication state in usrloc. SER itself does not use the replication flag and, as Marian said, you probably set the replicate
flag to non-zero value which is not correct.
Since you do not have the replication module, there is nothing that would reset the flag and the contact stays in the user location database forever.
The replication code was quite complex and it has been abandoned some time ago. I plan to remove the zombie states and all related code to make the usr location simpler.
Jan.
On 26-03 18:05, Marian Dumitru wrote:
Matt,
You get the message you mentioned "Keeping binding....." *only* if the contact is marked for replication. You can check this either in DB column replication, either into memory via "serctl ul
show".
As in code the replication flag is hardcoded to 0 (disabled), I would say you inserted via fifo some contacts with replication value
!= 0.
Or ???
If so, I'm not sure if usrloc will ever remove the contact if the replication flag is still set.
Best regards, Marian
Matt Schulte wrote:
Thanks for the reponse, I gathered that much. My question is how long
before the contact gets "removed"? It's late morning now and it's
still there :-)
-----Original Message----- From: Marian Dumitru [mailto:marian.dumitru@voice-sistem.ro] Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 5:37 AM To: Matt Schulte Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] usrloc and replication
Hi Matt,
After expiration an before being removed, the contact are still kept in ZOMBIE state - you can see the state in DB changes.
Best regards, Marian
Matt Schulte wrote:
Ok, I'm using usrloc db_mode 2, I understand the timer checks every 60
seconds default to see who should be expired and all. What I don't
understand is why I keep getting these messages:
Keeping binding '+13142664004','sip:s@69.29.57.253:3105' for replication
This contact expired nonetheless and should be removed, is there
something I'm missing?
+--------------+--------------------------------------+--------- +--------------+--------------------------------------+-- +--------------+--------------------------------------+-- +--------------+--------------------------------------+-- +--------------+--------------------------------------+-- ----+
| username | contact | expires
+--------------+--------------------------------------+--------- +--------------+--------------------------------------+-- +--------------+--------------------------------------+-- +--------------+--------------------------------------+-- +--------------+--------------------------------------+-- ----+
| +13142664004 | sip:s@69.29.57.253:3105 |
2005-03-26
00:42:35 |
| +13142664004 | sip:s@69.29.57.253:3118 |
2005-03-26
01:24:58 | +--------------+--------------------------------------+--------- +--------------+--------------------------------------+-- +--------------+--------------------------------------+-- +--------------+--------------------------------------+-- +--------------+--------------------------------------+-- ----+
-- Voice System http://www.voice-system.ro
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
db_mode is not related to reliability but just a matter of performance. I would say t_replicate and db_mode are not related in any way, or I miss something.
Nils
On Monday 28 March 2005 20:50, Matt Schulte wrote:
Ok, here's a kind of OT question for everyone out there. Is there any point to using db_mode 1 or 2 since t_replicate exists? Seems kind of pointless, unless I'm just missing something.. :)
Matt
-----Original Message----- From: Nils Ohlmeier [mailto:lists@ohlmeier.org] Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 9:04 AM To: Matt Schulte Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org; Jan Janak; Marian Dumitru Subject: Re: [Serusers] usrloc and replication
Please check with serctl if the contacts in memory already have non-zero rep values. I think the db-mode should have no effect on your problem. But I#m not up-to-date with the code any more.
Nils
On Monday 28 March 2005 16:32, Matt Schulte wrote:
Would db_mode 2 vs. 1 have any effect on this? My rep fields are still
non-zero, would posting my config even help?
Matt
-----Original Message----- From: Nils Ohlmeier [mailto:lists@ohlmeier.org] Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 8:49 PM To: serusers@lists.iptel.org Cc: Matt Schulte; Jan Janak; Marian Dumitru Subject: Re: [Serusers] usrloc and replication
The module was named replicator and the code was never public available because the code was non-free. The documentation behind it can be found in my diploma thesis. As Jan already said it's history. If you want to fix your running system just set all the replication values in your database to zero and restart your SER. Its very unlikely that
these
values were changed by SER at any time.
Nils
On Saturday 26 March 2005 22:52, Matt Schulte wrote:
I see, so if I set the replication value to non-zero, where would that
be done at? I didn't do it intentionally of course. Are you suggesting
a config thing or more manual such as editing the tables in the db? What was the module name written by Nils? Was it included in any versions of ser? Maybe I'm running this by accident, from what I can
tell though my config is pretty standard.Thanks much..
Matt
-----Original Message----- From: Jan Janak [mailto:jan@iptel.org] Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 2:06 PM To: Marian Dumitru Cc: Matt Schulte; serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] usrloc and replication
There was another SER module written by Nils Ohlmeier that replicated the user location contacts to a set of servers and kept the replication state in usrloc. SER itself does not use the replication flag and, as Marian said, you probably set the replicate
flag to non-zero value which is not correct.
Since you do not have the replication module, there is nothing that would reset the flag and the contact stays in the user location database forever.
The replication code was quite complex and it has been abandoned some time ago. I plan to remove the zombie states and all related code to make the usr location simpler.
Jan.
On 26-03 18:05, Marian Dumitru wrote:
Matt,
You get the message you mentioned "Keeping binding....." *only* if the contact is marked for replication. You can check this either in DB column replication, either into memory via "serctl ul
show".
As in code the replication flag is hardcoded to 0 (disabled), I would say you inserted via fifo some contacts with replication value
!= 0.
Or ???
If so, I'm not sure if usrloc will ever remove the contact if the replication flag is still set.
Best regards, Marian
Matt Schulte wrote:
Thanks for the reponse, I gathered that much. My question is how long
before the contact gets "removed"? It's late morning now and it's
still there :-)
-----Original Message----- From: Marian Dumitru [mailto:marian.dumitru@voice-sistem.ro] Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 5:37 AM To: Matt Schulte Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: Re: [Serusers] usrloc and replication
Hi Matt,
After expiration an before being removed, the contact are still kept in ZOMBIE state - you can see the state in DB changes.
Best regards, Marian
Matt Schulte wrote:
Ok, I'm using usrloc db_mode 2, I understand the timer checks every 60
seconds default to see who should be expired and all. What I don't
understand is why I keep getting these messages:
Keeping binding '+13142664004','sip:s@69.29.57.253:3105' for replication
This contact expired nonetheless and should be removed, is there
something I'm missing?
+--------------+--------------------------------------+--------- +--------------+--------------------------------------+-- +--------------+--------------------------------------+-- +--------------+--------------------------------------+-- +--------------+--------------------------------------+-- ----+
| username | contact | expires
+--------------+--------------------------------------+--------- +--------------+--------------------------------------+-- +--------------+--------------------------------------+-- +--------------+--------------------------------------+-- +--------------+--------------------------------------+-- ----+
| +13142664004 | sip:s@69.29.57.253:3105 |
2005-03-26
00:42:35 |
| +13142664004 | sip:s@69.29.57.253:3118 |
2005-03-26
01:24:58 | +--------------+--------------------------------------+--------- +--------------+--------------------------------------+-- +--------------+--------------------------------------+-- +--------------+--------------------------------------+-- +--------------+--------------------------------------+-- ----+
-- Voice System http://www.voice-system.ro
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-
Matt Schulte -
Nils Ohlmeier