I have an issue where my sip endpoint is sending ISUP information in the invite. IE: sip:+1xxxxxxxxxx;npdi=yes;cic=+1-0110@xxxx:5060 and when I run the enum query I am getting: 0(24410) enum_query(): uri user is not an E164 number
This is most likely due to the fact that $rU=+17794294010;npdi=yes;cic=+1-0110
Does openser not read the user properly? Is there a way to correct this?
I am running openser 1.2.2 notls
Thanks for any help! -Eric _________________________________________________________________ Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390709/direct/01/
Hi ERic!
The ENUM lookup is done with the complete userpart. In your case you have to parse the E164 number manually.
You can do this for example with string transformations: e.g. http://www.kamailio.org/dokuwiki/doku.php/transformations:1.5.x#sselect_inde...
Then use enum_pv_function() with the pseudo variable (pv) holding the parsed number. http://kamailio.org/docs/modules/1.5.x/enum#id2467740
regards klaus
Eric Hiller wrote:
I have an issue where my sip endpoint is sending ISUP information in the invite. IE: sip:+1xxxxxxxxxx;npdi=yes;cic=+1-0110@xxxx:5060 and when I run the enum query I am getting: 0(24410) enum_query(): uri user is not an E164 number
This is most likely due to the fact that $rU=+17794294010;npdi=yes;cic=+1-0110
Does openser not read the user properly? Is there a way to correct this?
I am running openser 1.2.2 notls
Thanks for any help! -Eric
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390709/direct/01/
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list Users@lists.kamailio.org http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
On Saturday 16 January 2010, Klaus Darilion wrote:
The ENUM lookup is done with the complete userpart. In your case you have to parse the E164 number manually.
You can do this for example with string transformations: e.g. http://www.kamailio.org/dokuwiki/doku.php/transformations:1.5.x#sselect_ind ex_separator
Then use enum_pv_function() with the pseudo variable (pv) holding the parsed number. http://kamailio.org/docs/modules/1.5.x/enum#id2467740
I have an issue where my sip endpoint is sending ISUP information in the invite. IE: sip:+1xxxxxxxxxx;npdi=yes;cic=+1-0110@xxxx:5060 and when I run the enum query I am getting: 0(24410) enum_query(): uri user is not an E164 number
This is most likely due to the fact that $rU=+17794294010;npdi=yes;cic=+1-0110
Does openser not read the user properly? Is there a way to correct this?
I am running openser 1.2.2 notls
Hi Eric,
the functionality that Klaus mentioned (string transformations) are not available in the version you use. Generelly i'd suggest to update to at least kamailio 1.5.3 or kamailio 3.0 which was released a few days ago, if you can.
Cheers,
Henning
Hello,
On 1/18/10 3:51 PM, Henning Westerholt wrote:
On Saturday 16 January 2010, Klaus Darilion wrote:
The ENUM lookup is done with the complete userpart. In your case you have to parse the E164 number manually.
You can do this for example with string transformations: e.g. http://www.kamailio.org/dokuwiki/doku.php/transformations:1.5.x#sselect_ind ex_separator
Then use enum_pv_function() with the pseudo variable (pv) holding the parsed number. http://kamailio.org/docs/modules/1.5.x/enum#id2467740
I have an issue where my sip endpoint is sending ISUP information in the invite. IE: sip:+1xxxxxxxxxx;npdi=yes;cic=+1-0110@xxxx:5060 and when I run the enum query I am getting: 0(24410) enum_query(): uri user is not an E164 number
This is most likely due to the fact that $rU=+17794294010;npdi=yes;cic=+1-0110
Does openser not read the user properly? Is there a way to correct this?
I am running openser 1.2.2 notls
Hi Eric,
the functionality that Klaus mentioned (string transformations) are not available in the version you use. Generelly i'd suggest to update to at least kamailio 1.5.3 or kamailio 3.0 which was released a few days ago, if you can.
I recommend as well an upgrade, however, for that version should try a solution with subst_user() from textops module.
Cheers, Daniel
Klaus,
Thanks for the help, I am working on getting 1.5 installed now as this functionality isn't available in 1.2 it would appear. In 1.5 I am getting an error for my code: $ruri.domain = "216.82.224.202"; forward(); Which worked fine in 1.2, but does not in 1.5. What would be the equivalent config for 1.5?
For the enum side I would do: enum_pv_query("{s.select,$ruri,;}");
If I did textops then it would be: subst_user('/;(.*)$//'); Correct?
Thanks again! -Eric
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:51:59 +0100 From: klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at To: mrraptor98@hotmail.com CC: users@lists.kamailio.org Subject: Re: [Kamailio-Users] isup in invite
Hi ERic!
The ENUM lookup is done with the complete userpart. In your case you have to parse the E164 number manually.
You can do this for example with string transformations: e.g. http://www.kamailio.org/dokuwiki/doku.php/transformations:1.5.x#sselect_inde...
Then use enum_pv_function() with the pseudo variable (pv) holding the parsed number. http://kamailio.org/docs/modules/1.5.x/enum#id2467740
regards klaus
Eric Hiller wrote:
I have an issue where my sip endpoint is sending ISUP information in the invite. IE: sip:+1xxxxxxxxxx;npdi=yes;cic=+1-0110@xxxx:5060 and when I run the enum query I am getting: 0(24410) enum_query(): uri user is not an E164 number
This is most likely due to the fact that $rU=+17794294010;npdi=yes;cic=+1-0110
Does openser not read the user properly? Is there a way to correct this?
I am running openser 1.2.2 notls
Thanks for any help! -Eric
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390709/direct/01/
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list Users@lists.kamailio.org http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list Users@lists.kamailio.org http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
_________________________________________________________________ Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390709/direct/01/
Hello,
On 1/27/10 7:50 PM, Eric Hiller wrote:
Klaus,
Thanks for the help, I am working on getting 1.5 installed now as this functionality isn't available in 1.2 it would appear. In 1.5 I am getting an error for my code: $ruri.domain = "216.82.224.202"; forward(); Which worked fine in 1.2, but does not in 1.5. What would be the equivalent config for 1.5?
have you loaded the pv.so module? In 1.5.0 and greater most of pseudo-variables are implemented in pv module. instead of $ruri.domain you can use the shorter version $rd.
Cheers, Daniel
For the enum side I would do: enum_pv_query("{s.select,$ruri,;}");
If I did textops then it would be: subst_user('/;(.*)$//'); Correct?
Thanks again! -Eric
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:51:59 +0100 From: klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at To: mrraptor98@hotmail.com CC: users@lists.kamailio.org Subject: Re: [Kamailio-Users] isup in invite
Hi ERic!
The ENUM lookup is done with the complete userpart. In your case you have to parse the E164 number manually.
You can do this for example with string transformations: e.g.
http://www.kamailio.org/dokuwiki/doku.php/transformations:1.5.x#sselect_inde...
Then use enum_pv_function() with the pseudo variable (pv) holding the parsed number. http://kamailio.org/docs/modules/1.5.x/enum#id2467740
regards klaus
Eric Hiller wrote:
I have an issue where my sip endpoint is sending ISUP information
in the
invite. IE: sip:+1xxxxxxxxxx;npdi=yes;cic=+1-0110@xxxx:5060 and
when I
run the enum query I am getting: 0(24410) enum_query(): uri user is not an E164 number
This is most likely due to the fact that $rU=+17794294010;npdi=yes;cic=+1-0110
Does openser not read the user properly? Is there a way to correct
this?
I am running openser 1.2.2 notls
Thanks for any help! -Eric
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
Sign up
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list Users@lists.kamailio.org http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list Users@lists.kamailio.org http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390709/direct/01/
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list Users@lists.kamailio.org http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Thanks much! Got it all running once I loaded pv.so Just in case it helps anyone else out; here is my final config:## switch.5+diag# same script, bug with diagnostic printouts; run with:# /usr/local/sbin/openser -f /usr/local/etc/openser/openser.cfg.diag## ----------- global configuration parameters ------------------------ debug=3#fork=yes#log_stderror=nochildren=4 # Uncomment these lines to enter debugging mode#debug=10fork=nolog_stderror=yeslisten=xxx# port=5060 # ------------------ module loading ---------------------------------- #set module pathmpath="/usr/local/lib/kamailio/modules/" loadmodule "sl.so"loadmodule "maxfwd.so"loadmodule "enum.so"loadmodule "pv.so"loadmodule "textops.so" #for diagnostic purposesloadmodule "mi_fifo.so"loadmodule "xlog.so" # ----------------- setting module-specific parameters --------------- #for diagnostic purposesmodparam("mi_fifo", "fifo_name", "/tmp/openser_fifo") modparam("enum", "domain_suffix", "xxx") # ------------------------- request routing logic ------------------- # main routing logic# ------------------route{ # initial checks if (!mf_process_maxfwd_header("10")) { sl_send_reply("483","Too Many Hops"); exit; }; if (msg:len >= 2048 ) { sl_send_reply("513", "Message too big"); exit; }; xlog("valid received to=<$ru> from=<$fu>\n"); # ENUM :: makes uri E164; then checks enum subst_user('/;(.*)$//'); if(enum_query()){ xlog("ENUM to <$ru>\n"); forward(); exit; } # GATEWAY :: forwards all valid unknowns to the gateway if(is_from_user_enum()){ xlog("SENT TO GATEWAY\n"); $ruri.domain = "xxx"; forward(); } else { xlog("FROM USER NOT IN ENUM\n"); }}
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:36:00 +0100 From: miconda@gmail.com To: mrraptor98@hotmail.com CC: klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at; users@lists.kamailio.org Subject: Re: [Kamailio-Users] isup in invite
Hello,
On 1/27/10 7:50 PM, Eric Hiller wrote:
Klaus,
Thanks for the help, I am working on getting 1.5 installed now as this functionality isn't available in 1.2 it would appear. In 1.5 I am getting an error for my code:
$ruri.domain = "216.82.224.202";
forward();
Which worked fine in 1.2, but does not in 1.5. What would be the equivalent config for 1.5?
have you loaded the pv.so module? In 1.5.0 and greater most of pseudo-variables are implemented in pv module. instead of $ruri.domain you can use the shorter version $rd.
Cheers,
Daniel
For the enum side I would do:
enum_pv_query("{s.select,$ruri,;}");
If I did textops then it would be:
subst_user('/;(.*)$//');
Correct?
Thanks again!
-Eric
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:51:59 +0100
From: klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at
To: mrraptor98@hotmail.com
CC: users@lists.kamailio.org
Subject: Re: [Kamailio-Users] isup in invite
Hi ERic!
The ENUM lookup is done with the complete userpart. In your case
you
have to parse the E164 number manually.
You can do this for example with string transformations: e.g.
http://www.kamailio.org/dokuwiki/doku.php/transformations:1.5.x#sselect_inde...
Then use enum_pv_function() with the pseudo variable (pv) holding
the
parsed number.
regards
klaus
Eric Hiller wrote:
I have an issue where my sip endpoint is sending ISUP
information in the
invite. IE: sip:+1xxxxxxxxxx;npdi=yes;cic=+1-0110@xxxx:5060
and when I
run the enum query I am getting:
0(24410) enum_query(): uri user is not an E164 number
This is most likely due to the fact that
$rU=+17794294010;npdi=yes;cic=+1-0110
Does openser not read the user properly? Is there a way to
correct this?
I am running openser 1.2.2 notls
Thanks for any help!
-Eric
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail
Free. Sign up
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list
Users@lists.kamailio.org
http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list
Users@lists.kamailio.org
http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now.
_______________________________________________ Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list Users@lists.kamailio.org http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
On 1/28/10 6:44 AM, Eric Hiller wrote:
Thanks much! Got it all running once I loaded pv.so
welcome! You can create a new wiki page explaining what this config offers and posting it there: http://www.kamailio.org/dokuwiki/doku.php/cfg-scripts-bank:main-index
It is easy to reference later to others.
Cheers, Daniel
Just in case it helps anyone else out; here is my final config: # # switch.5+diag # same script, bug with diagnostic printouts; run with: # /usr/local/sbin/openser -f /usr/local/etc/openser/openser.cfg.diag # # ----------- global configuration parameters ------------------------
debug=3 #fork=yes #log_stderror=no children=4
# Uncomment these lines to enter debugging mode #debug=10 fork=no log_stderror=yes listen=xxx #
port=5060
# ------------------ module loading ----------------------------------
#set module path mpath="/usr/local/lib/kamailio/modules/"
loadmodule "sl.so" loadmodule "maxfwd.so" loadmodule "enum.so" loadmodule "pv.so" loadmodule "textops.so"
#for diagnostic purposes loadmodule "mi_fifo.so" loadmodule "xlog.so"
# ----------------- setting module-specific parameters ---------------
#for diagnostic purposes modparam("mi_fifo", "fifo_name", "/tmp/openser_fifo")
modparam("enum", "domain_suffix", "xxx")
# ------------------------- request routing logic -------------------
# main routing logic # ------------------ route{ # initial checks if (!mf_process_maxfwd_header("10")) { sl_send_reply("483","Too Many Hops"); exit; }; if (msg:len >= 2048 ) { sl_send_reply("513", "Message too big"); exit; };
xlog("valid received to=<$ru> from=<$fu>\n"); # ENUM :: makes uri E164; then checks enum subst_user('/;(.*)$//'); if(enum_query()){ xlog("ENUM to <$ru>\n"); forward(); exit; } # GATEWAY :: forwards all valid unknowns to the gateway if(is_from_user_enum()){ xlog("SENT TO GATEWAY\n"); $ruri.domain = "xxx"; forward(); } else { xlog("FROM USER NOT IN ENUM\n"); }}
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:36:00 +0100 From: miconda@gmail.com To: mrraptor98@hotmail.com CC: klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at; users@lists.kamailio.org Subject: Re: [Kamailio-Users] isup in invite
Hello,
On 1/27/10 7:50 PM, Eric Hiller wrote:
Klaus, Thanks for the help, I am working on getting 1.5 installed now as this functionality isn't available in 1.2 it would appear. In 1.5 I am getting an error for my code: $ruri.domain = "216.82.224.202"; forward(); Which worked fine in 1.2, but does not in 1.5. What would be the equivalent config for 1.5?have you loaded the pv.so module? In 1.5.0 and greater most of pseudo-variables are implemented in pv module. instead of $ruri.domain you can use the shorter version $rd.
Cheers, Daniel
For the enum side I would do: enum_pv_query("{s.select,$ruri,;}"); If I did textops then it would be: subst_user('/;(.*)$//'); Correct? Thanks again! -Eric > Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:51:59 +0100 > From: klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at <mailto:klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at> > To: mrraptor98@hotmail.com <mailto:mrraptor98@hotmail.com> > CC: users@lists.kamailio.org <mailto:users@lists.kamailio.org> > Subject: Re: [Kamailio-Users] isup in invite > > Hi ERic! > > The ENUM lookup is done with the complete userpart. In your case you > have to parse the E164 number manually. > > You can do this for example with string transformations: e.g. > http://www.kamailio.org/dokuwiki/doku.php/transformations:1.5.x#sselect_index_separator > > Then use enum_pv_function() with the pseudo variable (pv) holding the > parsed number. > http://kamailio.org/docs/modules/1.5.x/enum#id2467740 > > > regards > klaus > > Eric Hiller wrote: > > I have an issue where my sip endpoint is sending ISUP information in the > > invite. IE: sip:+1xxxxxxxxxx;npdi=yes;cic=+1-0110@xxxx:5060 and when I > > run the enum query I am getting: > > 0(24410) enum_query(): uri user is not an E164 number > > > > This is most likely due to the fact that > > $rU=+17794294010;npdi=yes;cic=+1-0110 > > > > Does openser not read the user properly? Is there a way to correct this? > > > > I am running openser 1.2.2 notls > > > > Thanks for any help! > > -Eric > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up > > now. <http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390709/direct/01/> > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list > > Users@lists.kamailio.org <mailto:Users@lists.kamailio.org> > > http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users > > http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users > > > _______________________________________________ > Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list > Users@lists.kamailio.org <mailto:Users@lists.kamailio.org> > http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users > http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now. <http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390709/direct/01/> _______________________________________________ Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list Users@lists.kamailio.org <mailto:Users@lists.kamailio.org> http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla *http://www.asipto.com/
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390708/direct/01/
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list Users@lists.kamailio.org http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Hi again people!
I'm currently having some trouble with my sip.antisip.com server.
Within the previous 2 or 3 days, kamailio sometimes fall into some kind of dead lock.
I've been checking my logs while the dead lock happen, and it seems (although I'm not sure with only the logs) that only UDP support is broken: I can see some TLS and TCP registrations but do not see the usual udp traffic (keep alive for example)
Any idea?
Aymeric MOIZARD / ANTISIP amsip - http://www.antisip.com osip2 - http://www.osip.org eXosip2 - http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/exosip/
Got some more info:
The UDP deadlock always seems to happen after a SUBSCRIBE is sent (in UDP) to mobipouce.com:
Jan 28 11:00:40 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[13363]: ERROR:core:tcp_blocking_connect: poll error: flags 18 Jan 28 11:00:40 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[13363]: ERROR:core:tcp_blocking_connect: failed to retrieve SO_ERROR (111) Connection refused Jan 28 11:00:40 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[13363]: ERROR:core:tcpconn_connect: tcp_blocking_connect failed Jan 28 11:00:40 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[13363]: ERROR:core:tcp_send: connect failed Jan 28 11:00:40 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[13363]: ERROR:tm:msg_send: tcp_send failed Jan 28 11:00:40 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[13363]: ERROR:tm:t_forward_nonack: sending request failed
This logs happens each time I got a SUSCRIBE being relayed to another server: mobipouce.com. But the deadlock doesn't appear each time.
mobipouce.com is an existing & running server where I can connect with UDP and TCP. However, the SRV record returns 2 host where one host is down. (and I never got reply for the SUBSCRIBE: either if it fall into deadlock cas or not)
In case I can reproduce what step could I take to get more information about the issue? Any kmctl command?
Regards, Aymeric MOIZARD / ANTISIP amsip - http://www.antisip.com osip2 - http://www.osip.org eXosip2 - http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/exosip/
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
Hi again people!
I'm currently having some trouble with my sip.antisip.com server.
Within the previous 2 or 3 days, kamailio sometimes fall into some kind of dead lock.
I've been checking my logs while the dead lock happen, and it seems (although I'm not sure with only the logs) that only UDP support is broken: I can see some TLS and TCP registrations but do not see the usual udp traffic (keep alive for example)
Any idea?
Aymeric MOIZARD / ANTISIP amsip - http://www.antisip.com osip2 - http://www.osip.org eXosip2 - http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/exosip/
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list Users@lists.kamailio.org http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Hello,
On 1/28/10 11:18 AM, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
Got some more info:
The UDP deadlock always seems to happen after a SUBSCRIBE is sent (in UDP) to mobipouce.com:
Jan 28 11:00:40 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[13363]: ERROR:core:tcp_blocking_connect: poll error: flags 18 Jan 28 11:00:40 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[13363]: ERROR:core:tcp_blocking_connect: failed to retrieve SO_ERROR (111) Connection refused Jan 28 11:00:40 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[13363]: ERROR:core:tcpconn_connect: tcp_blocking_connect failed Jan 28 11:00:40 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[13363]: ERROR:core:tcp_send: connect failed Jan 28 11:00:40 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[13363]: ERROR:tm:msg_send: tcp_send failed Jan 28 11:00:40 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[13363]: ERROR:tm:t_forward_nonack: sending request failed
This logs happens each time I got a SUSCRIBE being relayed to another server: mobipouce.com. But the deadlock doesn't appear each time.
mobipouce.com is an existing & running server where I can connect with UDP and TCP. However, the SRV record returns 2 host where one host is down. (and I never got reply for the SUBSCRIBE: either if it fall into deadlock cas or not)
In case I can reproduce what step could I take to get more information about the issue? Any kmctl command?
is it recovering itself or you have to restart? How much cpu usage you get?
I if one or many eating lot of cpu, then use gdb to attach to the pid of process using lot of cpu and get the back trace:
gdb /path/to/kamailio pid
Cheers, Daniel
Regards, Aymeric MOIZARD / ANTISIP amsip - http://www.antisip.com osip2 - http://www.osip.org eXosip2 - http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/exosip/
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
Hi again people!
I'm currently having some trouble with my sip.antisip.com server.
Within the previous 2 or 3 days, kamailio sometimes fall into some kind of dead lock.
I've been checking my logs while the dead lock happen, and it seems (although I'm not sure with only the logs) that only UDP support is broken: I can see some TLS and TCP registrations but do not see the usual udp traffic (keep alive for example)
Any idea?
Aymeric MOIZARD / ANTISIP amsip - http://www.antisip.com osip2 - http://www.osip.org eXosip2 - http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/exosip/
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list Users@lists.kamailio.org http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list Users@lists.kamailio.org http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
Hello,
On 1/28/10 11:18 AM, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
Got some more info:
The UDP deadlock always seems to happen after a SUBSCRIBE is sent (in UDP) to mobipouce.com:
Jan 28 11:00:40 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[13363]: ERROR:core:tcp_blocking_connect: poll error: flags 18 Jan 28 11:00:40 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[13363]: ERROR:core:tcp_blocking_connect: failed to retrieve SO_ERROR (111) Connection refused Jan 28 11:00:40 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[13363]: ERROR:core:tcpconn_connect: tcp_blocking_connect failed Jan 28 11:00:40 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[13363]: ERROR:core:tcp_send: connect failed Jan 28 11:00:40 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[13363]: ERROR:tm:msg_send: tcp_send failed Jan 28 11:00:40 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[13363]: ERROR:tm:t_forward_nonack: sending request failed
This logs happens each time I got a SUSCRIBE being relayed to another server: mobipouce.com. But the deadlock doesn't appear each time.
mobipouce.com is an existing & running server where I can connect with UDP and TCP. However, the SRV record returns 2 host where one host is down. (and I never got reply for the SUBSCRIBE: either if it fall into deadlock cas or not)
In case I can reproduce what step could I take to get more information about the issue? Any kmctl command?
is it recovering itself or you have to restart? How much cpu usage you get?
Not noticed any CPU issue: I'll check exactly next time. (but traffic is growing up as kamailio don't answer any more.
I if one or many eating lot of cpu, then use gdb to attach to the pid of process using lot of cpu and get the back trace:
gdb /path/to/kamailio pid
I think I can reproduce now. So I'll take a try.
It's definitly after the SRV check: the server choose the sip2.mobipouce.com server where no sip server is running and failed to connect. Then the network capture shows that kamailio is still sending a few SIP packets (like NOTIFY) but no SIP answers is coming out of kamailio.
I will do more testing, but I guess one can reproduce by relaying to mobipouce.com!
Aymeric
Cheers, Daniel
Regards, Aymeric MOIZARD / ANTISIP amsip - http://www.antisip.com osip2 - http://www.osip.org eXosip2 - http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/exosip/
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
Hi again people!
I'm currently having some trouble with my sip.antisip.com server.
Within the previous 2 or 3 days, kamailio sometimes fall into some kind of dead lock.
I've been checking my logs while the dead lock happen, and it seems (although I'm not sure with only the logs) that only UDP support is broken: I can see some TLS and TCP registrations but do not see the usual udp traffic (keep alive for example)
Any idea?
Aymeric MOIZARD / ANTISIP amsip - http://www.antisip.com osip2 - http://www.osip.org eXosip2 - http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/exosip/
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list Users@lists.kamailio.org http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list Users@lists.kamailio.org http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Hi again,
here is the backtrace I have. unfortunatly without debug symbol! I found the same for many of the kamailio process. "sched_yield" is pending for ever. My system is a debian/etch.
#0 0xffffe424 in __kernel_vsyscall () #1 0xb7cef4ac in sched_yield () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6 #2 0x080a93fd in tcp_send () #3 0xb7975679 in send_pr_buffer () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so #4 0xb79789ac in t_forward_nonack () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so #5 0xb7974784 in t_relay_to () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so #6 0xb7983a11 in load_tm () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so #7 0x081cf810 in mem_pool () #8 0x00000000 in ?? ()
I guess most t_relay operation towards my "mobipouce.com" domain with one IP being down breaks each kamailio process one after the other... I'm not sure every such t_relay operation is always breaking exactly one thread each time.
I went through the lock/unlock of tcp_main.c but it seems every lock has an unlock at least...
Tks, Aymeric MOIZARD / ANTISIP amsip - http://www.antisip.com osip2 - http://www.osip.org eXosip2 - http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/exosip/
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
Hello,
On 1/28/10 11:18 AM, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
Got some more info:
The UDP deadlock always seems to happen after a SUBSCRIBE is sent (in UDP) to mobipouce.com:
Jan 28 11:00:40 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[13363]: ERROR:core:tcp_blocking_connect: poll error: flags 18 Jan 28 11:00:40 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[13363]: ERROR:core:tcp_blocking_connect: failed to retrieve SO_ERROR (111) Connection refused Jan 28 11:00:40 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[13363]: ERROR:core:tcpconn_connect: tcp_blocking_connect failed Jan 28 11:00:40 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[13363]: ERROR:core:tcp_send: connect failed Jan 28 11:00:40 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[13363]: ERROR:tm:msg_send: tcp_send failed Jan 28 11:00:40 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[13363]: ERROR:tm:t_forward_nonack: sending request failed
This logs happens each time I got a SUSCRIBE being relayed to another server: mobipouce.com. But the deadlock doesn't appear each time.
mobipouce.com is an existing & running server where I can connect with UDP and TCP. However, the SRV record returns 2 host where one host is down. (and I never got reply for the SUBSCRIBE: either if it fall into deadlock cas or not)
In case I can reproduce what step could I take to get more information about the issue? Any kmctl command?
is it recovering itself or you have to restart? How much cpu usage you get?
Not noticed any CPU issue: I'll check exactly next time. (but traffic is growing up as kamailio don't answer any more.
I if one or many eating lot of cpu, then use gdb to attach to the pid of process using lot of cpu and get the back trace:
gdb /path/to/kamailio pid
I think I can reproduce now. So I'll take a try.
It's definitly after the SRV check: the server choose the sip2.mobipouce.com server where no sip server is running and failed to connect. Then the network capture shows that kamailio is still sending a few SIP packets (like NOTIFY) but no SIP answers is coming out of kamailio.
I will do more testing, but I guess one can reproduce by relaying to mobipouce.com!
Aymeric
Cheers, Daniel
Regards, Aymeric MOIZARD / ANTISIP amsip - http://www.antisip.com osip2 - http://www.osip.org eXosip2 - http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/exosip/
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
Hi again people!
I'm currently having some trouble with my sip.antisip.com server.
Within the previous 2 or 3 days, kamailio sometimes fall into some kind of dead lock.
I've been checking my logs while the dead lock happen, and it seems (although I'm not sure with only the logs) that only UDP support is broken: I can see some TLS and TCP registrations but do not see the usual udp traffic (keep alive for example)
Any idea?
Aymeric MOIZARD / ANTISIP amsip - http://www.antisip.com osip2 - http://www.osip.org eXosip2 - http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/exosip/
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list Users@lists.kamailio.org http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list Users@lists.kamailio.org http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list Users@lists.kamailio.org http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
On Thursday 28 January 2010, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
here is the backtrace I have. unfortunatly without debug symbol! I found the same for many of the kamailio process. "sched_yield" is pending for ever. My system is a debian/etch.
#0 0xffffe424 in __kernel_vsyscall () #1 0xb7cef4ac in sched_yield () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6 #2 0x080a93fd in tcp_send () #3 0xb7975679 in send_pr_buffer () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so #4 0xb79789ac in t_forward_nonack () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so #5 0xb7974784 in t_relay_to () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so #6 0xb7983a11 in load_tm () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so #7 0x081cf810 in mem_pool () #8 0x00000000 in ?? ()
I guess most t_relay operation towards my "mobipouce.com" domain with one IP being down breaks each kamailio process one after the other... I'm not sure every such t_relay operation is always breaking exactly one thread each time.
I went through the lock/unlock of tcp_main.c but it seems every lock has an unlock at least...
Hi Aymeric,
i remember that we observed this "sched_yield" problems on one old 0.9 system after some time (like weeks or month). We did not found the solution in this case, after a restart it was gone again..
You mentioned in an earlier mail that you see this related to UDP traffic, but in the log file and also in your investigations you think its related to TPC?
Regards,
Henning
Viele Grüße,
Henning
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Henning Westerholt wrote:
On Thursday 28 January 2010, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
here is the backtrace I have. unfortunatly without debug symbol! I found the same for many of the kamailio process. "sched_yield" is pending for ever. My system is a debian/etch.
#0 0xffffe424 in __kernel_vsyscall () #1 0xb7cef4ac in sched_yield () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6 #2 0x080a93fd in tcp_send () #3 0xb7975679 in send_pr_buffer () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so #4 0xb79789ac in t_forward_nonack () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so #5 0xb7974784 in t_relay_to () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so #6 0xb7983a11 in load_tm () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so #7 0x081cf810 in mem_pool () #8 0x00000000 in ?? ()
I guess most t_relay operation towards my "mobipouce.com" domain with one IP being down breaks each kamailio process one after the other... I'm not sure every such t_relay operation is always breaking exactly one thread each time.
I went through the lock/unlock of tcp_main.c but it seems every lock has an unlock at least...
Hi Aymeric,
i remember that we observed this "sched_yield" problems on one old 0.9 system after some time (like weeks or month). We did not found the solution in this case, after a restart it was gone again..
You mentioned in an earlier mail that you see this related to UDP traffic, but in the log file and also in your investigations you think its related to TPC?
This is the exact case: 1-> SUBSCRIBE sent to/received by over UDP to kamailio. 2-> kamailio does a SRV record lookup for "mobipouce.com" 3-> kamailio try sip2.mobipouce.com (91.199.234.47) over TCP first 4-> connection failed with logs: Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]: ERROR:core:tcp_blocking_connect: poll error: flags 18 Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]: ERROR:core:tcp_blocking_connect: failed to retrieve SO_ERROR (111) Connection refused Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]: ERROR:core:tcpconn_connect: tcp_blocking_connect failed Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]: ERROR:core:tcp_send: connect failed Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]: ERROR:tm:msg_send: tcp_send failed Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]: ERROR:tm:t_forward_nonack: sending request failed 5-> I guess kamailio is supposed to try other SRV record value: sip2.mobipouce.com (91.199.234.46) but it doesn't
Thus, I'm guessing the issue is related to SRV record with failover OR just tcp failure. Not related to UDP at all.
It's definitly possible to reproduce the issue now!
I guess anyone can try your version of kamailio and t_relay message to "mobipouce.com" and you'll fall in that case! Sending plenty of those messages will finally lock all kamailio process.
Regards, Aymeric MOIZARD / ANTISIP amsip - http://www.antisip.com osip2 - http://www.osip.org eXosip2 - http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/exosip/
Regards,
Henning
Viele Grüße,
Henning
I am cc-ing sr-dev, since tcp code is from ser and Andrei may have more insights...
On 1/28/10 2:41 PM, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Henning Westerholt wrote:
On Thursday 28 January 2010, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
here is the backtrace I have. unfortunatly without debug symbol! I found the same for many of the kamailio process. "sched_yield" is pending for ever. My system is a debian/etch.
#0 0xffffe424 in __kernel_vsyscall () #1 0xb7cef4ac in sched_yield () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6 #2 0x080a93fd in tcp_send () #3 0xb7975679 in send_pr_buffer () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so #4 0xb79789ac in t_forward_nonack () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so #5 0xb7974784 in t_relay_to () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so #6 0xb7983a11 in load_tm () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so #7 0x081cf810 in mem_pool () #8 0x00000000 in ?? ()
I guess most t_relay operation towards my "mobipouce.com" domain with one IP being down breaks each kamailio process one after the other... I'm not sure every such t_relay operation is always breaking exactly one thread each time.
I went through the lock/unlock of tcp_main.c but it seems every lock has an unlock at least...
Hi Aymeric,
i remember that we observed this "sched_yield" problems on one old 0.9 system after some time (like weeks or month). We did not found the solution in this case, after a restart it was gone again..
You mentioned in an earlier mail that you see this related to UDP traffic, but in the log file and also in your investigations you think its related to TPC?
This is the exact case: 1-> SUBSCRIBE sent to/received by over UDP to kamailio. 2-> kamailio does a SRV record lookup for "mobipouce.com" 3-> kamailio try sip2.mobipouce.com (91.199.234.47) over TCP first 4-> connection failed with logs: Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]: ERROR:core:tcp_blocking_connect: poll error: flags 18 Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]: ERROR:core:tcp_blocking_connect: failed to retrieve SO_ERROR (111) Connection refused Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]: ERROR:core:tcpconn_connect: tcp_blocking_connect failed Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]: ERROR:core:tcp_send: connect failed Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]: ERROR:tm:msg_send: tcp_send failed Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]: ERROR:tm:t_forward_nonack: sending request failed 5-> I guess kamailio is supposed to try other SRV record value: sip2.mobipouce.com (91.199.234.46) but it doesn't
Thus, I'm guessing the issue is related to SRV record with failover OR just tcp failure. Not related to UDP at all.
so TCP connect failed, the tcp worker returned as it prints the message and, to be sure I got it right, the UDP worker (the one that received) got blocked?
It's definitly possible to reproduce the issue now!
I guess anyone can try your version of kamailio and t_relay message to "mobipouce.com" and you'll fall in that case! Sending plenty of those messages will finally lock all kamailio process.
All? tcp and udp?
Cheers, Daniel
Regards, Aymeric MOIZARD / ANTISIP amsip - http://www.antisip.com osip2 - http://www.osip.org eXosip2 - http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/exosip/
Regards,
Henning
Viele Grüße,
Henning
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list Users@lists.kamailio.org http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
some other answer below:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
I am cc-ing sr-dev, since tcp code is from ser and Andrei may have more insights...
On 1/28/10 2:41 PM, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Henning Westerholt wrote:
On Thursday 28 January 2010, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
here is the backtrace I have. unfortunatly without debug symbol! I found the same for many of the kamailio process. "sched_yield" is pending for ever. My system is a debian/etch.
#0 0xffffe424 in __kernel_vsyscall () #1 0xb7cef4ac in sched_yield () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6 #2 0x080a93fd in tcp_send () #3 0xb7975679 in send_pr_buffer () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so #4 0xb79789ac in t_forward_nonack () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so #5 0xb7974784 in t_relay_to () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so #6 0xb7983a11 in load_tm () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so #7 0x081cf810 in mem_pool () #8 0x00000000 in ?? ()
I guess most t_relay operation towards my "mobipouce.com" domain with one IP being down breaks each kamailio process one after the other... I'm not sure every such t_relay operation is always breaking exactly one thread each time.
I went through the lock/unlock of tcp_main.c but it seems every lock has an unlock at least...
Hi Aymeric,
i remember that we observed this "sched_yield" problems on one old 0.9 system after some time (like weeks or month). We did not found the solution in this case, after a restart it was gone again..
You mentioned in an earlier mail that you see this related to UDP traffic, but in the log file and also in your investigations you think its related to TPC?
This is the exact case: 1-> SUBSCRIBE sent to/received by over UDP to kamailio. 2-> kamailio does a SRV record lookup for "mobipouce.com" 3-> kamailio try sip2.mobipouce.com (91.199.234.47) over TCP first 4-> connection failed with logs: Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]: ERROR:core:tcp_blocking_connect: poll error: flags 18 Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]: ERROR:core:tcp_blocking_connect: failed to retrieve SO_ERROR (111) Connection refused Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]: ERROR:core:tcpconn_connect: tcp_blocking_connect failed Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]: ERROR:core:tcp_send: connect failed Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]: ERROR:tm:msg_send: tcp_send failed Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]: ERROR:tm:t_forward_nonack: sending request failed 5-> I guess kamailio is supposed to try other SRV record value: sip2.mobipouce.com (91.199.234.46) but it doesn't
Thus, I'm guessing the issue is related to SRV record with failover OR just tcp failure. Not related to UDP at all.
so TCP connect failed, the tcp worker returned as it prints the message and, to be sure I got it right, the UDP worker (the one that received) got blocked?
1-> TCP connect failed 2-> second SRV is used: TCP connect succeed, but lock in tcp_send
That's what I understand.
I have tested a TCP connection to my server: It seems to be still working.
It's definitly possible to reproduce the issue now!
I guess anyone can try your version of kamailio and t_relay message to "mobipouce.com" and you'll fall in that case! Sending plenty of those messages will finally lock all kamailio process.
All? tcp and udp?
Only udp! Aymeric
Cheers, Daniel
Regards, Aymeric MOIZARD / ANTISIP amsip - http://www.antisip.com osip2 - http://www.osip.org eXosip2 - http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/exosip/
Regards,
Henning
Viele Grüße,
Henning
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list Users@lists.kamailio.org http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Hello,
On 1/28/10 3:34 PM, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
some other answer below:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
I am cc-ing sr-dev, since tcp code is from ser and Andrei may have more insights...
On 1/28/10 2:41 PM, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Henning Westerholt wrote:
On Thursday 28 January 2010, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
here is the backtrace I have. unfortunatly without debug symbol!
can you recompile with debug symbols? Do you have it installed from package or sources? It will give more hints about the place in the function...
I will try to reproduce, but now I do not have the proper environment for testing...
Thanks, Daniel
I found the same for many of the kamailio process. "sched_yield" is pending for ever. My system is a debian/etch.
#0 0xffffe424 in __kernel_vsyscall () #1 0xb7cef4ac in sched_yield () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6 #2 0x080a93fd in tcp_send () #3 0xb7975679 in send_pr_buffer () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so #4 0xb79789ac in t_forward_nonack () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so #5 0xb7974784 in t_relay_to () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so #6 0xb7983a11 in load_tm () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so #7 0x081cf810 in mem_pool () #8 0x00000000 in ?? ()
I guess most t_relay operation towards my "mobipouce.com" domain with one IP being down breaks each kamailio process one after the other... I'm not sure every such t_relay operation is always breaking exactly one thread each time.
I went through the lock/unlock of tcp_main.c but it seems every lock has an unlock at least...
Hi Aymeric,
i remember that we observed this "sched_yield" problems on one old 0.9 system after some time (like weeks or month). We did not found the solution in this case, after a restart it was gone again..
You mentioned in an earlier mail that you see this related to UDP traffic, but in the log file and also in your investigations you think its related to TPC?
This is the exact case: 1-> SUBSCRIBE sent to/received by over UDP to kamailio. 2-> kamailio does a SRV record lookup for "mobipouce.com" 3-> kamailio try sip2.mobipouce.com (91.199.234.47) over TCP first 4-> connection failed with logs: Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]: ERROR:core:tcp_blocking_connect: poll error: flags 18 Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]: ERROR:core:tcp_blocking_connect: failed to retrieve SO_ERROR (111) Connection refused Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]: ERROR:core:tcpconn_connect: tcp_blocking_connect failed Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]: ERROR:core:tcp_send: connect failed Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]: ERROR:tm:msg_send: tcp_send failed Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]: ERROR:tm:t_forward_nonack: sending request failed 5-> I guess kamailio is supposed to try other SRV record value: sip2.mobipouce.com (91.199.234.46) but it doesn't
Thus, I'm guessing the issue is related to SRV record with failover OR just tcp failure. Not related to UDP at all.
so TCP connect failed, the tcp worker returned as it prints the message and, to be sure I got it right, the UDP worker (the one that received) got blocked?
1-> TCP connect failed 2-> second SRV is used: TCP connect succeed, but lock in tcp_send
That's what I understand.
I have tested a TCP connection to my server: It seems to be still working.
It's definitly possible to reproduce the issue now!
I guess anyone can try your version of kamailio and t_relay message to "mobipouce.com" and you'll fall in that case! Sending plenty of those messages will finally lock all kamailio process.
All? tcp and udp?
Only udp! Aymeric
Cheers, Daniel
Regards, Aymeric MOIZARD / ANTISIP amsip - http://www.antisip.com osip2 - http://www.osip.org eXosip2 - http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/exosip/
Regards,
Henning
Viele Grüße,
Henning
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list Users@lists.kamailio.org http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list Users@lists.kamailio.org http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
On Jan 28, 2010 at 14:56, Daniel-Constantin Mierla miconda@gmail.com wrote:
I am cc-ing sr-dev, since tcp code is from ser and Andrei may have more insights...
Is this kamailio 1.5 or kamailio 3.0 (looks like <3.0 to me)?
On 1/28/10 2:41 PM, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Henning Westerholt wrote:
On Thursday 28 January 2010, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
here is the backtrace I have. unfortunatly without debug symbol! I found the same for many of the kamailio process. "sched_yield" is pending for ever. My system is a debian/etch.
#0 0xffffe424 in __kernel_vsyscall () #1 0xb7cef4ac in sched_yield () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6 #2 0x080a93fd in tcp_send () #3 0xb7975679 in send_pr_buffer () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so #4 0xb79789ac in t_forward_nonack () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so #5 0xb7974784 in t_relay_to () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so #6 0xb7983a11 in load_tm () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so #7 0x081cf810 in mem_pool () #8 0x00000000 in ?? ()
The backtrace looks strange (mem_pool() and load_tm() for example). It would help greatly to have it compiled with debug symbols from source (or have around the exact source used for the compiled code).
I guess most t_relay operation towards my "mobipouce.com" domain with one IP being down breaks each kamailio process one after the other... I'm not sure every such t_relay operation is always breaking exactly one thread each time.
I went through the lock/unlock of tcp_main.c but it seems every lock has an unlock at least...
Hi Aymeric,
i remember that we observed this "sched_yield" problems on one old 0.9 system after some time (like weeks or month). We did not found the solution in this case, after a restart it was gone again..
If it's kamailio 1.5 (or any version < 3.0) then the sched_yield() means spinning on a lock. However I'm not sure we can trust the backtrace.
You mentioned in an earlier mail that you see this related to UDP traffic, but in the log file and also in your investigations you think its related to TPC?
This is the exact case: 1-> SUBSCRIBE sent to/received by over UDP to kamailio. 2-> kamailio does a SRV record lookup for "mobipouce.com" 3-> kamailio try sip2.mobipouce.com (91.199.234.47) over TCP first 4-> connection failed with logs: Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]: ERROR:core:tcp_blocking_connect: poll error: flags 18 Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]: ERROR:core:tcp_blocking_connect: failed to retrieve SO_ERROR (111) Connection refused Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]: ERROR:core:tcpconn_connect: tcp_blocking_connect failed Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]: ERROR:core:tcp_send: connect failed Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]: ERROR:tm:msg_send: tcp_send failed Jan 27 12:56:38 ns26829 /usr/sbin/kamailio[9763]: ERROR:tm:t_forward_nonack: sending request failed 5-> I guess kamailio is supposed to try other SRV record value: sip2.mobipouce.com (91.199.234.46) but it doesn't
Thus, I'm guessing the issue is related to SRV record with failover OR just tcp failure. Not related to UDP at all.
so TCP connect failed, the tcp worker returned as it prints the message and, to be sure I got it right, the UDP worker (the one that received) got blocked?
My guess (assuming kamailio 1.5) is that the problem is in tm somewhere and not in the TCP code. There are hardly any TCP locks used in this case (connect failure). Most likely the backtrace is bogus.
It's definitly possible to reproduce the issue now!
I guess anyone can try your version of kamailio and t_relay message to "mobipouce.com" and you'll fall in that case! Sending plenty of those messages will finally lock all kamailio process.
All? tcp and udp?
Andrei
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
On Jan 28, 2010 at 14:56, Daniel-Constantin Mierla miconda@gmail.com wrote:
I am cc-ing sr-dev, since tcp code is from ser and Andrei may have more insights...
Is this kamailio 1.5 or kamailio 3.0 (looks like <3.0 to me)?
This is branches/1.5 With svn version 5949.
Here is the debug backtrace: with kamailio-dbg_1.5.0_i386.deb installed:
(gdb) bt #0 0xffffe424 in __kernel_vsyscall () #1 0xb7d694ac in sched_yield () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6 #2 0x080a93fd in tcp_send (send_sock=0x8159d60, type=3, buf=0xb3992908 "SUBSCRIBE sip:aymeric2@mobipouce.com SIP/2.0\r\nRecord-Route: sip:91.121.81.212:5061;transport=tls;r2=on;lr=on\r\nRecord-Route: sip:91.121.81.212;r2=on;lr=on\r\nVia: SIP/2.0/TLS 91.121.81.212:5061;branc"..., len=645, to=0xb392f494, id=0) at fastlock.h:182 #3 0xb79ef679 in send_pr_buffer (rb=0xb392f480, buf=0xb3992908, len=645) at ../../forward.h:127 #4 0xb79f29ac in t_forward_nonack (t=0xb392f368, p_msg=0x81d02d8, proxy=0x0) at t_fwd.c:691 #5 0xb79ee784 in t_relay_to (p_msg=0x81d02d8, proxy=0x0, flags=<value optimized out>) at t_funcs.c:264 #6 0xb79fda11 in w_t_relay (p_msg=0x81d02d8, proxy=0x0, flags=0x0) at tm.c:1002 #7 0x080551ef in do_action (a=0x8172100, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:874 #8 0x080577df in run_action_list (a=0x8172100, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:145 #9 0x0808f11b in eval_expr (e=0x8172168, msg=0x81d02d8, val=0x0) at route.c:1171 #10 0x0808ebb0 in eval_expr (e=0x8172190, msg=0x81d02d8, val=0x0) at route.c:1488 #11 0x0808eb3f in eval_expr (e=0x81721b8, msg=0x81d02d8, val=0x0) at route.c:1493 #12 0x08055005 in do_action (a=0x81722d0, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:729 #13 0x080577df in run_action_list (a=0x8171928, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:145 #14 0x08055e49 in do_action (a=0x816ba50, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:120 #15 0x080577df in run_action_list (a=0x816ba50, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:145 #16 0x08056d0f in do_action (a=0x816bab8, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:746 #17 0x080577df in run_action_list (a=0x81618c0, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:145 #18 0x08057b93 in run_top_route (a=0x81618c0, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:120 #19 0x08083a0d in receive_msg ( buf=0x81341c0 "SUBSCRIBE sip:aymeric2@mobipouce.com SIP/2.0\r\nVia: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.2.3:6010;rport;branch=z9hG4bK972183375\r\nFrom: "aymeric" sip:antisip@sip.antisip.com;tag=286101806\r\nTo: <sip:aymeric2@mobipouce."..., len=692, rcv_info=0xbfc9ad54) at receive.c:175 #20 0x080b3943 in udp_rcv_loop () at udp_server.c:460 #21 0x0806b294 in main (argc=-1211358212, argv=0xb7f61590) at main.c:774
One thing that didn't came up before is that it seems the message is containing TLS, not TCP. I don't have time to analyse it now deeper, but I may try to change the SRV to see how it differ.
Tks, Aymeric
On 1/28/10 8:40 PM, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
On Jan 28, 2010 at 14:56, Daniel-Constantin Mierla miconda@gmail.com wrote:
I am cc-ing sr-dev, since tcp code is from ser and Andrei may have more insights...
Is this kamailio 1.5 or kamailio 3.0 (looks like <3.0 to me)?
This is branches/1.5 With svn version 5949.
I thought it is 3.0.0, as all your other emails were related to this version. On another hand, if you run 1.x is better to use the last one, 1.5.3.
Please include the version when you report a problem, otherwise we can hunt in difference places.
Cheers, Daniel
Here is the debug backtrace: with kamailio-dbg_1.5.0_i386.deb installed:
(gdb) bt #0 0xffffe424 in __kernel_vsyscall () #1 0xb7d694ac in sched_yield () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6 #2 0x080a93fd in tcp_send (send_sock=0x8159d60, type=3, buf=0xb3992908 "SUBSCRIBE sip:aymeric2@mobipouce.com SIP/2.0\r\nRecord-Route: sip:91.121.81.212:5061;transport=tls;r2=on;lr=on\r\nRecord-Route: sip:91.121.81.212;r2=on;lr=on\r\nVia: SIP/2.0/TLS 91.121.81.212:5061;branc"..., len=645, to=0xb392f494, id=0) at fastlock.h:182 #3 0xb79ef679 in send_pr_buffer (rb=0xb392f480, buf=0xb3992908, len=645) at ../../forward.h:127 #4 0xb79f29ac in t_forward_nonack (t=0xb392f368, p_msg=0x81d02d8, proxy=0x0) at t_fwd.c:691 #5 0xb79ee784 in t_relay_to (p_msg=0x81d02d8, proxy=0x0, flags=<value optimized out>) at t_funcs.c:264 #6 0xb79fda11 in w_t_relay (p_msg=0x81d02d8, proxy=0x0, flags=0x0) at tm.c:1002 #7 0x080551ef in do_action (a=0x8172100, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:874 #8 0x080577df in run_action_list (a=0x8172100, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:145 #9 0x0808f11b in eval_expr (e=0x8172168, msg=0x81d02d8, val=0x0) at route.c:1171 #10 0x0808ebb0 in eval_expr (e=0x8172190, msg=0x81d02d8, val=0x0) at route.c:1488 #11 0x0808eb3f in eval_expr (e=0x81721b8, msg=0x81d02d8, val=0x0) at route.c:1493 #12 0x08055005 in do_action (a=0x81722d0, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:729 #13 0x080577df in run_action_list (a=0x8171928, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:145 #14 0x08055e49 in do_action (a=0x816ba50, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:120 #15 0x080577df in run_action_list (a=0x816ba50, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:145 #16 0x08056d0f in do_action (a=0x816bab8, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:746 #17 0x080577df in run_action_list (a=0x81618c0, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:145 #18 0x08057b93 in run_top_route (a=0x81618c0, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:120 #19 0x08083a0d in receive_msg ( buf=0x81341c0 "SUBSCRIBE sip:aymeric2@mobipouce.com SIP/2.0\r\nVia: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.2.3:6010;rport;branch=z9hG4bK972183375\r\nFrom: "aymeric" sip:antisip@sip.antisip.com;tag=286101806\r\nTo: <sip:aymeric2@mobipouce."..., len=692, rcv_info=0xbfc9ad54) at receive.c:175 #20 0x080b3943 in udp_rcv_loop () at udp_server.c:460 #21 0x0806b294 in main (argc=-1211358212, argv=0xb7f61590) at main.c:774
One thing that didn't came up before is that it seems the message is containing TLS, not TCP. I don't have time to analyse it now deeper, but I may try to change the SRV to see how it differ.
Tks, Aymeric
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
On 1/28/10 8:40 PM, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
On Jan 28, 2010 at 14:56, Daniel-Constantin Mierla miconda@gmail.com wrote:
I am cc-ing sr-dev, since tcp code is from ser and Andrei may have more insights...
Is this kamailio 1.5 or kamailio 3.0 (looks like <3.0 to me)?
This is branches/1.5 With svn version 5949.
I thought it is 3.0.0, as all your other emails were related to this version.
Sorry, I though I did mentioned it in my initial mail (sent on kamailio mailing list) however, it waz not the case.
I would have asked on ser-users if it was 3.0 ;)
On another hand, if you run 1.x is better to use the last one, 1.5.3.
I'm pretty sure it's 1.5.3: changelog starts with: ===================== 2009-10-XX Kamailio v1.5.3 released =====================
Regards, Aymeric
Please include the version when you report a problem, otherwise we can hunt in difference places.
Cheers, Daniel
Here is the debug backtrace: with kamailio-dbg_1.5.0_i386.deb installed:
(gdb) bt #0 0xffffe424 in __kernel_vsyscall () #1 0xb7d694ac in sched_yield () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6 #2 0x080a93fd in tcp_send (send_sock=0x8159d60, type=3, buf=0xb3992908 "SUBSCRIBE sip:aymeric2@mobipouce.com SIP/2.0\r\nRecord-Route: sip:91.121.81.212:5061;transport=tls;r2=on;lr=on\r\nRecord-Route: sip:91.121.81.212;r2=on;lr=on\r\nVia: SIP/2.0/TLS 91.121.81.212:5061;branc"..., len=645, to=0xb392f494, id=0) at fastlock.h:182 #3 0xb79ef679 in send_pr_buffer (rb=0xb392f480, buf=0xb3992908, len=645) at ../../forward.h:127 #4 0xb79f29ac in t_forward_nonack (t=0xb392f368, p_msg=0x81d02d8, proxy=0x0) at t_fwd.c:691 #5 0xb79ee784 in t_relay_to (p_msg=0x81d02d8, proxy=0x0, flags=<value optimized out>) at t_funcs.c:264 #6 0xb79fda11 in w_t_relay (p_msg=0x81d02d8, proxy=0x0, flags=0x0) at tm.c:1002 #7 0x080551ef in do_action (a=0x8172100, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:874 #8 0x080577df in run_action_list (a=0x8172100, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:145 #9 0x0808f11b in eval_expr (e=0x8172168, msg=0x81d02d8, val=0x0) at route.c:1171 #10 0x0808ebb0 in eval_expr (e=0x8172190, msg=0x81d02d8, val=0x0) at route.c:1488 #11 0x0808eb3f in eval_expr (e=0x81721b8, msg=0x81d02d8, val=0x0) at route.c:1493 #12 0x08055005 in do_action (a=0x81722d0, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:729 #13 0x080577df in run_action_list (a=0x8171928, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:145 #14 0x08055e49 in do_action (a=0x816ba50, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:120 #15 0x080577df in run_action_list (a=0x816ba50, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:145 #16 0x08056d0f in do_action (a=0x816bab8, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:746 #17 0x080577df in run_action_list (a=0x81618c0, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:145 #18 0x08057b93 in run_top_route (a=0x81618c0, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:120 #19 0x08083a0d in receive_msg ( buf=0x81341c0 "SUBSCRIBE sip:aymeric2@mobipouce.com SIP/2.0\r\nVia: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.2.3:6010;rport;branch=z9hG4bK972183375\r\nFrom: "aymeric" sip:antisip@sip.antisip.com;tag=286101806\r\nTo: <sip:aymeric2@mobipouce."..., len=692, rcv_info=0xbfc9ad54) at receive.c:175 #20 0x080b3943 in udp_rcv_loop () at udp_server.c:460 #21 0x0806b294 in main (argc=-1211358212, argv=0xb7f61590) at main.c:774
One thing that didn't came up before is that it seems the message is containing TLS, not TCP. I don't have time to analyse it now deeper, but I may try to change the SRV to see how it differ.
Tks, Aymeric
-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla
On 1/28/10 9:17 PM, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
On 1/28/10 8:40 PM, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
On Jan 28, 2010 at 14:56, Daniel-Constantin Mierla miconda@gmail.com wrote:
I am cc-ing sr-dev, since tcp code is from ser and Andrei may have more insights...
Is this kamailio 1.5 or kamailio 3.0 (looks like <3.0 to me)?
This is branches/1.5 With svn version 5949.
I thought it is 3.0.0, as all your other emails were related to this version.
Sorry, I though I did mentioned it in my initial mail (sent on kamailio mailing list) however, it waz not the case.
I would have asked on ser-users if it was 3.0 ;)
kamailio 3.0.0 is on this mailing list, being latest stable version of kamailio. sr-users is mainly for mainstream sip-router users. serusers is for ser project users.
i do not care if kamailio and sr-users get mixed, though, i prefer kamailio to be discussed here, there are different default setting for it than in other 3.0 branches.
Cheers, Daniel
On another hand, if you run 1.x is better to use the last one, 1.5.3.
I'm pretty sure it's 1.5.3: changelog starts with: ===================== 2009-10-XX Kamailio v1.5.3 released =====================
Regards, Aymeric
Please include the version when you report a problem, otherwise we can hunt in difference places.
Cheers, Daniel
Here is the debug backtrace: with kamailio-dbg_1.5.0_i386.deb installed:
(gdb) bt #0 0xffffe424 in __kernel_vsyscall () #1 0xb7d694ac in sched_yield () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6 #2 0x080a93fd in tcp_send (send_sock=0x8159d60, type=3, buf=0xb3992908 "SUBSCRIBE sip:aymeric2@mobipouce.com SIP/2.0\r\nRecord-Route: sip:91.121.81.212:5061;transport=tls;r2=on;lr=on\r\nRecord-Route: sip:91.121.81.212;r2=on;lr=on\r\nVia: SIP/2.0/TLS 91.121.81.212:5061;branc"..., len=645, to=0xb392f494, id=0) at fastlock.h:182 #3 0xb79ef679 in send_pr_buffer (rb=0xb392f480, buf=0xb3992908, len=645) at ../../forward.h:127 #4 0xb79f29ac in t_forward_nonack (t=0xb392f368, p_msg=0x81d02d8, proxy=0x0) at t_fwd.c:691 #5 0xb79ee784 in t_relay_to (p_msg=0x81d02d8, proxy=0x0, flags=<value optimized out>) at t_funcs.c:264 #6 0xb79fda11 in w_t_relay (p_msg=0x81d02d8, proxy=0x0, flags=0x0) at tm.c:1002 #7 0x080551ef in do_action (a=0x8172100, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:874 #8 0x080577df in run_action_list (a=0x8172100, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:145 #9 0x0808f11b in eval_expr (e=0x8172168, msg=0x81d02d8, val=0x0) at route.c:1171 #10 0x0808ebb0 in eval_expr (e=0x8172190, msg=0x81d02d8, val=0x0) at route.c:1488 #11 0x0808eb3f in eval_expr (e=0x81721b8, msg=0x81d02d8, val=0x0) at route.c:1493 #12 0x08055005 in do_action (a=0x81722d0, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:729 #13 0x080577df in run_action_list (a=0x8171928, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:145 #14 0x08055e49 in do_action (a=0x816ba50, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:120 #15 0x080577df in run_action_list (a=0x816ba50, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:145 #16 0x08056d0f in do_action (a=0x816bab8, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:746 #17 0x080577df in run_action_list (a=0x81618c0, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:145 #18 0x08057b93 in run_top_route (a=0x81618c0, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:120 #19 0x08083a0d in receive_msg ( buf=0x81341c0 "SUBSCRIBE sip:aymeric2@mobipouce.com SIP/2.0\r\nVia: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.2.3:6010;rport;branch=z9hG4bK972183375\r\nFrom: "aymeric" sip:antisip@sip.antisip.com;tag=286101806\r\nTo: <sip:aymeric2@mobipouce."..., len=692, rcv_info=0xbfc9ad54) at receive.c:175 #20 0x080b3943 in udp_rcv_loop () at udp_server.c:460 #21 0x0806b294 in main (argc=-1211358212, argv=0xb7f61590) at main.c:774
One thing that didn't came up before is that it seems the message is containing TLS, not TCP. I don't have time to analyse it now deeper, but I may try to change the SRV to see how it differ.
Tks, Aymeric
-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla
sr-dev mailing list sr-dev@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
Hello Aymeric,
I was forwarding some registrations to your domain and didn't get the deadlock. I did get tcp_send failed many times and then used second dns record. I have two udp workers.
How fast did you get to lock?
I am using latest 1.5.3 here, what is your output of kamailio -V?
Thanks, Daniel
On 1/28/10 9:17 PM, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
On 1/28/10 8:40 PM, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
On Jan 28, 2010 at 14:56, Daniel-Constantin Mierla miconda@gmail.com wrote:
I am cc-ing sr-dev, since tcp code is from ser and Andrei may have more insights...
Is this kamailio 1.5 or kamailio 3.0 (looks like <3.0 to me)?
This is branches/1.5 With svn version 5949.
I thought it is 3.0.0, as all your other emails were related to this version.
Sorry, I though I did mentioned it in my initial mail (sent on kamailio mailing list) however, it waz not the case.
I would have asked on ser-users if it was 3.0 ;)
On another hand, if you run 1.x is better to use the last one, 1.5.3.
I'm pretty sure it's 1.5.3: changelog starts with: ===================== 2009-10-XX Kamailio v1.5.3 released =====================
Regards, Aymeric
Please include the version when you report a problem, otherwise we can hunt in difference places.
Cheers, Daniel
Here is the debug backtrace: with kamailio-dbg_1.5.0_i386.deb installed:
(gdb) bt #0 0xffffe424 in __kernel_vsyscall () #1 0xb7d694ac in sched_yield () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6 #2 0x080a93fd in tcp_send (send_sock=0x8159d60, type=3, buf=0xb3992908 "SUBSCRIBE sip:aymeric2@mobipouce.com SIP/2.0\r\nRecord-Route: sip:91.121.81.212:5061;transport=tls;r2=on;lr=on\r\nRecord-Route: sip:91.121.81.212;r2=on;lr=on\r\nVia: SIP/2.0/TLS 91.121.81.212:5061;branc"..., len=645, to=0xb392f494, id=0) at fastlock.h:182 #3 0xb79ef679 in send_pr_buffer (rb=0xb392f480, buf=0xb3992908, len=645) at ../../forward.h:127 #4 0xb79f29ac in t_forward_nonack (t=0xb392f368, p_msg=0x81d02d8, proxy=0x0) at t_fwd.c:691 #5 0xb79ee784 in t_relay_to (p_msg=0x81d02d8, proxy=0x0, flags=<value optimized out>) at t_funcs.c:264 #6 0xb79fda11 in w_t_relay (p_msg=0x81d02d8, proxy=0x0, flags=0x0) at tm.c:1002 #7 0x080551ef in do_action (a=0x8172100, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:874 #8 0x080577df in run_action_list (a=0x8172100, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:145 #9 0x0808f11b in eval_expr (e=0x8172168, msg=0x81d02d8, val=0x0) at route.c:1171 #10 0x0808ebb0 in eval_expr (e=0x8172190, msg=0x81d02d8, val=0x0) at route.c:1488 #11 0x0808eb3f in eval_expr (e=0x81721b8, msg=0x81d02d8, val=0x0) at route.c:1493 #12 0x08055005 in do_action (a=0x81722d0, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:729 #13 0x080577df in run_action_list (a=0x8171928, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:145 #14 0x08055e49 in do_action (a=0x816ba50, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:120 #15 0x080577df in run_action_list (a=0x816ba50, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:145 #16 0x08056d0f in do_action (a=0x816bab8, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:746 #17 0x080577df in run_action_list (a=0x81618c0, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:145 #18 0x08057b93 in run_top_route (a=0x81618c0, msg=0x81d02d8) at action.c:120 #19 0x08083a0d in receive_msg ( buf=0x81341c0 "SUBSCRIBE sip:aymeric2@mobipouce.com SIP/2.0\r\nVia: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.2.3:6010;rport;branch=z9hG4bK972183375\r\nFrom: "aymeric" sip:antisip@sip.antisip.com;tag=286101806\r\nTo: <sip:aymeric2@mobipouce."..., len=692, rcv_info=0xbfc9ad54) at receive.c:175 #20 0x080b3943 in udp_rcv_loop () at udp_server.c:460 #21 0x0806b294 in main (argc=-1211358212, argv=0xb7f61590) at main.c:774
One thing that didn't came up before is that it seems the message is containing TLS, not TCP. I don't have time to analyse it now deeper, but I may try to change the SRV to see how it differ.
Tks, Aymeric
-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list Users@lists.kamailio.org http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Again additionnal information:
Doing new capture: after the failure, I can see that a TCP connection is made with second SRV record: sip.mobipouce.com (91.199.234.46)
I got: SYN ACK -> sip.mobipouce.com ACK <- sip.mobipouce.com PSH, ACK <- sip.mobipouce.com ACK -> sip.mobipouce.com
I'm guessing that this is where the stack trace is dead locked because no SUBSCRIBE is sent then... -> #2 0x080a93fd in tcp_send ()
strangly in this "tcp_send" method, there is no TCPCONN_LOCK/TCPCONN_UNLOCK: instead, there is a lock_get(&c->write_lock); ... lock_release(&c->write_lock);
May be still correct anyway...
Tks, Aymeric MOIZARD / ANTISIP amsip - http://www.antisip.com osip2 - http://www.osip.org eXosip2 - http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/exosip/
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Henning Westerholt wrote:
On Thursday 28 January 2010, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
here is the backtrace I have. unfortunatly without debug symbol! I found the same for many of the kamailio process. "sched_yield" is pending for ever. My system is a debian/etch.
#0 0xffffe424 in __kernel_vsyscall () #1 0xb7cef4ac in sched_yield () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6 #2 0x080a93fd in tcp_send () #3 0xb7975679 in send_pr_buffer () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so #4 0xb79789ac in t_forward_nonack () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so #5 0xb7974784 in t_relay_to () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so #6 0xb7983a11 in load_tm () from /usr/lib/kamailio/modules/tm.so #7 0x081cf810 in mem_pool () #8 0x00000000 in ?? ()
I guess most t_relay operation towards my "mobipouce.com" domain with one IP being down breaks each kamailio process one after the other... I'm not sure every such t_relay operation is always breaking exactly one thread each time.
I went through the lock/unlock of tcp_main.c but it seems every lock has an unlock at least...
Hi Aymeric,
i remember that we observed this "sched_yield" problems on one old 0.9 system after some time (like weeks or month). We did not found the solution in this case, after a restart it was gone again..
You mentioned in an earlier mail that you see this related to UDP traffic, but in the log file and also in your investigations you think its related to TPC?
Regards,
Henning
Viele Grüße,
Henning
-
Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul -
Aymeric Moizard -
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -
Eric Hiller -
Henning Westerholt -
Klaus Darilion