Hi all,
Just wanted to know what your opinions were on using DMQ modules over database for things like dialog replication, registrations, etc...
Is DMQ the "new way to go"? I know that there lots of ways of doing things with each having pros/cons... But I was wondering...
What does the community think on this topic?
Are you guys taking advantage of the DMQ modules or are you still relying on database as much as possible? Maybe a combination of both?
Cheers, Joel.
Hello Joel,
Our experience with using DMQ for dialog and usrloc replication has been very positive, and we recommend it wholeheartedly over the crusty database sync-based methods.
The primary appeal comes from the fact that the replication is done at a higher level, so there is no need to contend with issues surrounding the degree of two-way coupling that DB-backed modules have. For instance, the dialog module has both "runtime" and "persistent" components to its backing, so while the dialog module can store dialog info in a DB table, it can't store profile info. Replicating dialogs via DMQ allows one to share profile state.
And in general, it's a lot more efficient. If you have 3 or 4 registrars, you have a reasonable degree of persistence if you use in memory-only storage for usrloc with DMQ replication. That takes an enormous workload off the database.
Databases are for storage; they aren't great for highly ephemeral, short-lived, real-time data, though they're often (mis)used for that purpose:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database-as-IPC
DMQ solves a much-needed gap here in Kamailio, and I hope it is extended to provide transport for other components too.
-- Alex
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 08:31:56AM -0700, Joel Serrano wrote:
Hi all,
Just wanted to know what your opinions were on using DMQ modules over database for things like dialog replication, registrations, etc...
Is DMQ the "new way to go"? I know that there lots of ways of doing things with each having pros/cons... But I was wondering...
What does the community think on this topic?
Are you guys taking advantage of the DMQ modules or are you still relying on database as much as possible? Maybe a combination of both?
Cheers, Joel.
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
Hello Joel,
+1 to everything Alex has said. Using DMQ simplifies/flattens the stack and allows for a truly decoupled cluster with fewer points of failure.
In production we use DMQ for htable, usrloc, dialog and presence, where previously we were using MySQL with Percona - now, performance is vastly improved and the admin overhead is greatly reduced.
Disclaimer: I am possibly very slightly biased!
Cheers,
Charles
On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 at 16:45, Alex Balashov abalashov@evaristesys.com wrote:
Hello Joel,
Our experience with using DMQ for dialog and usrloc replication has been very positive, and we recommend it wholeheartedly over the crusty database sync-based methods.
The primary appeal comes from the fact that the replication is done at a higher level, so there is no need to contend with issues surrounding the degree of two-way coupling that DB-backed modules have. For instance, the dialog module has both "runtime" and "persistent" components to its backing, so while the dialog module can store dialog info in a DB table, it can't store profile info. Replicating dialogs via DMQ allows one to share profile state.
And in general, it's a lot more efficient. If you have 3 or 4 registrars, you have a reasonable degree of persistence if you use in memory-only storage for usrloc with DMQ replication. That takes an enormous workload off the database.
Databases are for storage; they aren't great for highly ephemeral, short-lived, real-time data, though they're often (mis)used for that purpose:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database-as-IPC
DMQ solves a much-needed gap here in Kamailio, and I hope it is extended to provide transport for other components too.
-- Alex
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 08:31:56AM -0700, Joel Serrano wrote:
Hi all,
Just wanted to know what your opinions were on using DMQ modules over database for things like dialog replication, registrations, etc...
Is DMQ the "new way to go"? I know that there lots of ways of doing
things
with each having pros/cons... But I was wondering...
What does the community think on this topic?
Are you guys taking advantage of the DMQ modules or are you still relying on database as much as possible? Maybe a combination of both?
Cheers, Joel.
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
-- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
Another big advantage of DMQ is that it's transported over SIP using a custom request method (KDMQ). This sets up an opportunity to add additional infrastructure to deal with routing and managing those requests intermediately if needed in a large-scale environment.
DMQ is a great thing, and we owe one to Charles & co.
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 07:23:51PM +0100, Charles Chance wrote:
Hello Joel,
+1 to everything Alex has said. Using DMQ simplifies/flattens the stack and allows for a truly decoupled cluster with fewer points of failure.
In production we use DMQ for htable, usrloc, dialog and presence, where previously we were using MySQL with Percona - now, performance is vastly improved and the admin overhead is greatly reduced.
Disclaimer: I am possibly very slightly biased!
Cheers,
Charles
On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 at 16:45, Alex Balashov abalashov@evaristesys.com wrote:
Hello Joel,
Our experience with using DMQ for dialog and usrloc replication has been very positive, and we recommend it wholeheartedly over the crusty database sync-based methods.
The primary appeal comes from the fact that the replication is done at a higher level, so there is no need to contend with issues surrounding the degree of two-way coupling that DB-backed modules have. For instance, the dialog module has both "runtime" and "persistent" components to its backing, so while the dialog module can store dialog info in a DB table, it can't store profile info. Replicating dialogs via DMQ allows one to share profile state.
And in general, it's a lot more efficient. If you have 3 or 4 registrars, you have a reasonable degree of persistence if you use in memory-only storage for usrloc with DMQ replication. That takes an enormous workload off the database.
Databases are for storage; they aren't great for highly ephemeral, short-lived, real-time data, though they're often (mis)used for that purpose:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database-as-IPC
DMQ solves a much-needed gap here in Kamailio, and I hope it is extended to provide transport for other components too.
-- Alex
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 08:31:56AM -0700, Joel Serrano wrote:
Hi all,
Just wanted to know what your opinions were on using DMQ modules over database for things like dialog replication, registrations, etc...
Is DMQ the "new way to go"? I know that there lots of ways of doing
things
with each having pros/cons... But I was wondering...
What does the community think on this topic?
Are you guys taking advantage of the DMQ modules or are you still relying on database as much as possible? Maybe a combination of both?
Cheers, Joel.
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
-- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
-- Sipcentric Ltd. Company registered in England & Wales no. 7365592. Registered office: Faraday Wharf, Innovation Birmingham Campus, Holt Street, Birmingham Science Park, Birmingham B7 4BB.
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
PS.
In a NAT'd world, thousands of devices with low re-registration intervals are legion. Getting the database out of that business can literally be a tectonic game-changer in terms of the underlying economics in a service provider environment. It's incredibly wasteful and mostly pointless.
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 02:38:37PM -0400, Alex Balashov wrote:
Another big advantage of DMQ is that it's transported over SIP using a custom request method (KDMQ). This sets up an opportunity to add additional infrastructure to deal with routing and managing those requests intermediately if needed in a large-scale environment.
DMQ is a great thing, and we owe one to Charles & co.
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 07:23:51PM +0100, Charles Chance wrote:
Hello Joel,
+1 to everything Alex has said. Using DMQ simplifies/flattens the stack and allows for a truly decoupled cluster with fewer points of failure.
In production we use DMQ for htable, usrloc, dialog and presence, where previously we were using MySQL with Percona - now, performance is vastly improved and the admin overhead is greatly reduced.
Disclaimer: I am possibly very slightly biased!
Cheers,
Charles
On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 at 16:45, Alex Balashov abalashov@evaristesys.com wrote:
Hello Joel,
Our experience with using DMQ for dialog and usrloc replication has been very positive, and we recommend it wholeheartedly over the crusty database sync-based methods.
The primary appeal comes from the fact that the replication is done at a higher level, so there is no need to contend with issues surrounding the degree of two-way coupling that DB-backed modules have. For instance, the dialog module has both "runtime" and "persistent" components to its backing, so while the dialog module can store dialog info in a DB table, it can't store profile info. Replicating dialogs via DMQ allows one to share profile state.
And in general, it's a lot more efficient. If you have 3 or 4 registrars, you have a reasonable degree of persistence if you use in memory-only storage for usrloc with DMQ replication. That takes an enormous workload off the database.
Databases are for storage; they aren't great for highly ephemeral, short-lived, real-time data, though they're often (mis)used for that purpose:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database-as-IPC
DMQ solves a much-needed gap here in Kamailio, and I hope it is extended to provide transport for other components too.
-- Alex
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 08:31:56AM -0700, Joel Serrano wrote:
Hi all,
Just wanted to know what your opinions were on using DMQ modules over database for things like dialog replication, registrations, etc...
Is DMQ the "new way to go"? I know that there lots of ways of doing
things
with each having pros/cons... But I was wondering...
What does the community think on this topic?
Are you guys taking advantage of the DMQ modules or are you still relying on database as much as possible? Maybe a combination of both?
Cheers, Joel.
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
-- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
-- Sipcentric Ltd. Company registered in England & Wales no. 7365592. Registered office: Faraday Wharf, Innovation Birmingham Campus, Holt Street, Birmingham Science Park, Birmingham B7 4BB.
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
-- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 8:23 PM, Charles Chance charles.chance@sipcentric.com wrote:
[...] In production we use DMQ for htable, usrloc, dialog and presence, where previously we were using MySQL with Percona - now, performance is vastly improved and the admin overhead is greatly reduced. [...]
Hi Charles,
can you provide us with more info on how you configured DMQ between the different kamailio instances?
We have a scalable dockerized environment and it's difficult to configure DMQ having dynamic IPs, instances booting up and scaling down on demand.
Also we've noticed that when a new instance comes up it doesn't sync old values from the other dialogs and hash tables but gets only new values from the boot time on.
Kind regards and thanks, Alex
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 11:13:13AM +0200, Aleksandar Sosic wrote:
We have a scalable dockerized environment and it's difficult to configure DMQ having dynamic IPs, instances booting up and scaling down on demand.
A DNS alias that resolves to multiple entries is a great way to do that:
https://kamailio.org/docs/modules/5.1.x/modules/dmq.html#dmq.p.notification_... https://kamailio.org/docs/modules/5.1.x/modules/dmq.html#dmq.p.multi_notify
although it'd be great if DMQ could exclude the local host from those notification peers automatically, so that one didn't have to set up multiple, exclusionary DNS entries for specific instances. Who knows, maybe it can.
But in principle, such DNS records can be tied to the internal DNS resolution of a container discovery mechanism, be it Docker's internal mechanism or something more like Consul.
-- Alex
(You guys confirmed what I was thinking when I started the thread.. thank you all for your replies, they gave me a lot of confidence on DMQ and I'm already testing it out)
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 9:06 AM, Alex Balashov abalashov@evaristesys.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 11:13:13AM +0200, Aleksandar Sosic wrote:
We have a scalable dockerized environment and it's difficult to configure DMQ having dynamic IPs, instances booting up and scaling down on demand.
A DNS alias that resolves to multiple entries is a great way to do that:
https://kamailio.org/docs/modules/5.1.x/modules/dmq. html#dmq.p.notification_address https://kamailio.org/docs/modules/5.1.x/modules/dmq. html#dmq.p.multi_notify
although it'd be great if DMQ could exclude the local host from those notification peers automatically, so that one didn't have to set up multiple, exclusionary DNS entries for specific instances. Who knows, maybe it can.
But in principle, such DNS records can be tied to the internal DNS resolution of a container discovery mechanism, be it Docker's internal mechanism or something more like Consul.
-- Alex
-- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 at 17:08, Alex Balashov abalashov@evaristesys.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 11:13:13AM +0200, Aleksandar Sosic wrote:
We have a scalable dockerized environment and it's difficult to configure DMQ having dynamic IPs, instances booting up and scaling down on demand.
A DNS alias that resolves to multiple entries is a great way to do that:
https://kamailio.org/docs/modules/5.1.x/modules/dmq.html#dmq.p.notification_... https://kamailio.org/docs/modules/5.1.x/modules/dmq.html#dmq.p.multi_notify
This is how we’re doing it.
although it'd be great if DMQ could exclude the local host from those notification peers automatically, so that one didn't have to set up multiple, exclusionary DNS entries for specific instances. Who knows, maybe it can.
It should be doing this already. If this is not the case, let me know in a separate thread and I can take a look.
As for initial syncing of data, htable and dialog modules do not do this currently, although I actually have it implemented locally in htable and plan to push it soon to master. Dialog should not be difficult to do the same.
Cheers,
Charles
Hello all,
Do you expect the DMQ vs database advantages to still hold true even when considering REDIS as a database (new backend in devel should make this possible)? Or are these points mainly relevant when it comes to traditional, persistent storage databases like mySQL? Thanks!
BR, George
On 27 April 2018 at 21:23, Charles Chance charles.chance@sipcentric.com wrote:
Hello Joel,
+1 to everything Alex has said. Using DMQ simplifies/flattens the stack and allows for a truly decoupled cluster with fewer points of failure.
In production we use DMQ for htable, usrloc, dialog and presence, where previously we were using MySQL with Percona - now, performance is vastly improved and the admin overhead is greatly reduced.
Disclaimer: I am possibly very slightly biased!
Cheers,
Charles
On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 at 16:45, Alex Balashov abalashov@evaristesys.com wrote:
Hello Joel,
Our experience with using DMQ for dialog and usrloc replication has been very positive, and we recommend it wholeheartedly over the crusty database sync-based methods.
The primary appeal comes from the fact that the replication is done at a higher level, so there is no need to contend with issues surrounding the degree of two-way coupling that DB-backed modules have. For instance, the dialog module has both "runtime" and "persistent" components to its backing, so while the dialog module can store dialog info in a DB table, it can't store profile info. Replicating dialogs via DMQ allows one to share profile state.
And in general, it's a lot more efficient. If you have 3 or 4 registrars, you have a reasonable degree of persistence if you use in memory-only storage for usrloc with DMQ replication. That takes an enormous workload off the database.
Databases are for storage; they aren't great for highly ephemeral, short-lived, real-time data, though they're often (mis)used for that purpose:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database-as-IPC
DMQ solves a much-needed gap here in Kamailio, and I hope it is extended to provide transport for other components too.
-- Alex
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 08:31:56AM -0700, Joel Serrano wrote:
Hi all,
Just wanted to know what your opinions were on using DMQ modules over database for things like dialog replication, registrations, etc...
Is DMQ the "new way to go"? I know that there lots of ways of doing
things
with each having pros/cons... But I was wondering...
What does the community think on this topic?
Are you guys taking advantage of the DMQ modules or are you still
relying
on database as much as possible? Maybe a combination of both?
Cheers, Joel.
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
-- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
Sipcentric Ltd. Company registered in England & Wales no. 7365592. Registered office: Faraday Wharf, Innovation Birmingham Campus, Holt Street, Birmingham Science Park, Birmingham B7 4BB.
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
The DMQ advantage still holds due to flattening of the stack/seamlessness, and lack of mediation/marshaling through DB APIs or manual Redis interactions.
On May 2, 2018 10:56:41 AM EDT, George Diamantopoulos georgediam@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all,
Do you expect the DMQ vs database advantages to still hold true even when considering REDIS as a database (new backend in devel should make this possible)? Or are these points mainly relevant when it comes to traditional, persistent storage databases like mySQL? Thanks!
BR, George
On 27 April 2018 at 21:23, Charles Chance charles.chance@sipcentric.com wrote:
Hello Joel,
+1 to everything Alex has said. Using DMQ simplifies/flattens the
stack
and allows for a truly decoupled cluster with fewer points of
failure.
In production we use DMQ for htable, usrloc, dialog and presence,
where
previously we were using MySQL with Percona - now, performance is
vastly
improved and the admin overhead is greatly reduced.
Disclaimer: I am possibly very slightly biased!
Cheers,
Charles
On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 at 16:45, Alex Balashov
wrote:
Hello Joel,
Our experience with using DMQ for dialog and usrloc replication has
been
very positive, and we recommend it wholeheartedly over the crusty database sync-based methods.
The primary appeal comes from the fact that the replication is done
at a
higher level, so there is no need to contend with issues surrounding
the
degree of two-way coupling that DB-backed modules have. For
instance,
the dialog module has both "runtime" and "persistent" components to
its
backing, so while the dialog module can store dialog info in a DB
table,
it can't store profile info. Replicating dialogs via DMQ allows one
to
share profile state.
And in general, it's a lot more efficient. If you have 3 or 4 registrars, you have a reasonable degree of persistence if you use
in
memory-only storage for usrloc with DMQ replication. That takes an enormous workload off the database.
Databases are for storage; they aren't great for highly ephemeral, short-lived, real-time data, though they're often (mis)used for that purpose:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database-as-IPC
DMQ solves a much-needed gap here in Kamailio, and I hope it is
extended
to provide transport for other components too.
-- Alex
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 08:31:56AM -0700, Joel Serrano wrote:
Hi all,
Just wanted to know what your opinions were on using DMQ modules
over
database for things like dialog replication, registrations, etc...
Is DMQ the "new way to go"? I know that there lots of ways of
doing
things
with each having pros/cons... But I was wondering...
What does the community think on this topic?
Are you guys taking advantage of the DMQ modules or are you still
relying
on database as much as possible? Maybe a combination of both?
Cheers, Joel.
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
-- Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC
Tel: +1-706-510-6800 / +1-800-250-5920 (toll-free) Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/, http://www.csrpswitch.com/
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
Sipcentric Ltd. Company registered in England & Wales no. 7365592.
Registered
office: Faraday Wharf, Innovation Birmingham Campus, Holt Street, Birmingham Science Park, Birmingham B7 4BB.
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
-- Alex
-- Sent via mobile, please forgive typos and brevity.
By way of further answer:
The use of a database as an interprocess communication mechanism is considered an antipattern (the opposite of a "best practice"):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-pattern#Software_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database-as-IPC
While relational databases perform the worst at this, the fundamental problem is using the database as a work queue for ephemeral/real-time data. Simply using a faster, and/or nonrelational database, doesn't remove the problem, it just makes the setup perform better. It's a difference of degree, not kind.
Ultimately, databases — including in-memory key-value stores — are for storage, not for IPC. This doesn't stop them being routinely used as such by people who do not know how to write IPC mechanisms and middleware of their own. That's less excusable in an era with lots of prefabricated options, whether message queues (e.g. AMQP) or distributed systems closer to the application level (like DMQ).
-- Alex
Am Mittwoch, 2. Mai 2018, 19:36:11 CEST schrieb Alex Balashov:
By way of further answer:
The use of a database as an interprocess communication mechanism is considered an antipattern (the opposite of a "best practice"):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-pattern#Software_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database-as-IPC
While relational databases perform the worst at this, the fundamental problem is using the database as a work queue for ephemeral/real-time data. Simply using a faster, and/or nonrelational database, doesn't remove the problem, it just makes the setup perform better. It's a difference of degree, not kind.
Ultimately, databases — including in-memory key-value stores — are for storage, not for IPC. This doesn't stop them being routinely used as such by people who do not know how to write IPC mechanisms and middleware of their own. That's less excusable in an era with lots of prefabricated options, whether message queues (e.g. AMQP) or distributed systems closer to the application level (like DMQ).
Hello Alex,
you are right of course regarding the comments about the anti-pattern using databases as IPC.
But IMHO there are valid use cases for storing a registration in a database, like access for third party applications. E.g. you have a front end that shows customer care if a user is registered or not, and you don't want that this PHP GUI access directly your Kamailio servers. Or you need to access the registration data in a big java enterprise middle-ware for user contract status.
But in a smaller or more homogeneous environment its of course easier to synchronize the registration state with DMQ.
Best regards,
Henning
Henning,
I would agree with that. All depends on your design priorities.
-- Alex
-- Sent via mobile, please forgive typos and brevity.
You can have both. What we did is create a designated writer. A kamailio instance that participates in DMQ but handles no SIP traffic and periodically writes registrations from memory to a database.
The other nodes work out of memory and load registrations from the writer node's db on restart.
On Wed, May 2, 2018, 15:14 Alex Balashov abalashov@evaristesys.com wrote:
Henning,
I would agree with that. All depends on your design priorities.
-- Alex
-- Sent via mobile, please forgive typos and brevity.
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
We did that as well.
On May 2, 2018 9:07:53 PM EDT, John Petrini jpetrini@coredial.com wrote:
You can have both. What we did is create a designated writer. A kamailio instance that participates in DMQ but handles no SIP traffic and periodically writes registrations from memory to a database.
The other nodes work out of memory and load registrations from the writer node's db on restart.
On Wed, May 2, 2018, 15:14 Alex Balashov abalashov@evaristesys.com wrote:
Henning,
I would agree with that. All depends on your design priorities.
-- Alex
-- Sent via mobile, please forgive typos and brevity.
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
-- Alex
-- Sent via mobile, please forgive typos and brevity.
Hi Charles,
With regards presence, are you using dmq module with dmq_t_replicate to replicate publish messages?
On 27/04/18 19:23, Charles Chance wrote:
Hello Joel,
+1 to everything Alex has said. Using DMQ simplifies/flattens the stack and allows for a truly decoupled cluster with fewer points of failure.
In production we use DMQ for htable, usrloc, dialog and presence, where previously we were using MySQL with Percona - now, performance is vastly improved and the admin overhead is greatly reduced.
Disclaimer: I am possibly very slightly biased!
Cheers,
Charles
Hi,
On Thu, 3 May 2018 at 11:22, Asgaroth 00asgaroth00@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Charles,
With regards presence, are you using dmq module with dmq_t_replicate to replicate publish messages?
No, recently added integration directly into the presence module: https://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/devel/modules/presence.html#presence.p...
On 27/04/18 19:23, Charles Chance wrote:
Hello Joel,
+1 to everything Alex has said. Using DMQ simplifies/flattens the stack and allows for a truly decoupled cluster with fewer points of failure.
In production we use DMQ for htable, usrloc, dialog and presence, where previously we were using MySQL with Percona - now, performance is vastly improved and the admin overhead is greatly reduced.
Disclaimer: I am possibly very slightly biased!
Cheers,
Charles
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
Is that available in stable 5.0.x / 5.1.x or is it only available in master branch?
On 03/05/18 12:28, Charles Chance wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 3 May 2018 at 11:22, Asgaroth <00asgaroth00@gmail.com mailto:00asgaroth00@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Charles, With regards presence, are you using dmq module with dmq_t_replicate to replicate publish messages?No, recently added integration directly into the presence module: https://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/devel/modules/presence.html#presence.p...
On 27/04/18 19:23, Charles Chance wrote: > Hello Joel, > > +1 to everything Alex has said. Using DMQ simplifies/flattens the > stack and allows for a truly decoupled cluster with fewer points of > failure. > > In production we use DMQ for htable, usrloc, dialog and presence, > where previously we were using MySQL with Percona - now, performance > is vastly improved and the admin overhead is greatly reduced. > > Disclaimer: I am possibly very slightly biased! > > Cheers, > > Charles > > _______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org <mailto:sr-users@lists.kamailio.org> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users-- *Charles Chance* Managing Director
t. 0330 120 1200 m. 07932 063 891
Sipcentric Ltd. Company registered in England & Wales no. 7365592.Registered office: Faraday Wharf, Innovation Birmingham Campus, Holt Street, Birmingham Science Park, Birmingham B7 4BB.
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
Only in master I’m afraid due to a DB schema change. The relevant patches should work fine on 5.1 if you wanted to apply it locally:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/1402 https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/1435
Cheers,
Charles
On Thu, 3 May 2018 at 12:40, Asgaroth 00asgaroth00@gmail.com wrote:
Is that available in stable 5.0.x / 5.1.x or is it only available in master branch?
On 03/05/18 12:28, Charles Chance wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 3 May 2018 at 11:22, Asgaroth 00asgaroth00@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Charles,
With regards presence, are you using dmq module with dmq_t_replicate to replicate publish messages?
No, recently added integration directly into the presence module:
https://www.kamailio.org/docs/modules/devel/modules/presence.html#presence.p...
On 27/04/18 19:23, Charles Chance wrote:
Hello Joel,
+1 to everything Alex has said. Using DMQ simplifies/flattens the stack and allows for a truly decoupled cluster with fewer points of failure.
In production we use DMQ for htable, usrloc, dialog and presence, where previously we were using MySQL with Percona - now, performance is vastly improved and the admin overhead is greatly reduced.
Disclaimer: I am possibly very slightly biased!
Cheers,
Charles
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
-- *Charles Chance* Managing Director
t. 0330 120 1200 m. 07932 063 891
Sipcentric Ltd. Company registered in England & Wales no. 7365592. Registered office: Faraday Wharf, Innovation Birmingham Campus, Holt Street, Birmingham Science Park, Birmingham B7 4BB.
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing Listsr-users@lists.kamailio.orghttps://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
-
Aleksandar Sosic -
Alex Balashov -
Asgaroth -
Charles Chance -
George Diamantopoulos -
Henning Westerholt -
Joel Serrano -
John Petrini