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

Klaus Darilion klaus.mailinglists at pernau.at
Mon Nov 27 14:42:08 CET 2006


Does someone have an idea where the big TM difference between stable ser 
and openser comes from?


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Re: Fw: [Users] TM : retransmission timers
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 16:06:39 +0100
From: Vaclav Kubart <vaclav.kubart at iptel.org>
To: Daniel-Constantin Mierla <daniel at voice-system.ro>
CC: Jiri Kuthan <jiri at iptel.org>, serusers at iptel.org,	Kim Il 
<kim_il_s at yahoo.com>, users at openser.org
References: <20061109201647.74488.qmail at web57812.mail.re3.yahoo.com> 
< at iptel.org> 
<4563822C.8080508 at voice-system.ro>

I'm sorry to nip in, but I tried to rerun the tests again and add more
info into output as requested and add stable ser and CVS openser.

I know that this test doesn't conform much to real life (for example
generated callid/branch/tags differs only in a number, etc) but it can
give at least an image about simple stateful forward.

So, if anybody is interested:


I tried the same once more with less iterations because there were some
errors in log from openser speaking about low memory (I used -m to
specify shared mem size but with 768M it still said errors, might be a
memleak or did I anything wrong?). With 1M iterations it was without



P.S. I have forgotten - SIPP was "Sipp v1.1, version 20060829, built Sep
5 2006, 15:07:25", I'm attaching simple patch which I have used.

On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 12:48:12AM +0200, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
> I love such "independent" and "very very useful" tests ... one selected 
> the versions he liked, latest development of ser with latest stable 
> version of openser, the details about testing scenarios are pretty 
> limited. However these details are very very insignificant, really.
> What matters is this particular case: what you tested is useless and 
> someone can better implement a tiny kernel module to perform same job 
> much faster that will make openser/ser trashed instantly if that is 
> their only usage. More important are the performances in real world 
> cases. I am not going to do comparison tests and reveal numbers, I will 
> let you do and hope make the results available.
> I will exemplify with just two common use cases:
> A) ITSP where usrloc is required - to get the throughput from your tests 
> one needs to have over million of online users. Let me know how SER is 
> doing with loading them, I can bet that it takes several minutes to 
> start (so service down for a significat time) and lot to lookup a record 
> afterwards, do not forget to mention required memory. Then we will see 
> if the forwarding throughput is the bottleneck.
> B) carrier - heavy accounting needed - take the latest cvs snapshots and 
> test it, look at flexibility in same time and see if the balance of 
> throughput and features is satisfactory. Do not forget that behind 
> database should be redundant for a reliable accounting storage.
> My conclusion and the point I wanted to underline is that forwarding is 
> not the bottleneck by far and so far in real-world deployments -- or at 
> least nobody reported in openser mailing lists. Once it will be, for 
> sure there will be effort and focus to optimize it. I don't even bother 
> to check the scenarios, environment and test results you had, because 
> makes no sense today.
> It is more important to look at the results gave, for example, here by 
> an independent party:
> http://openser.org/pipermail/users/2006-November/007777.html
> With a real config and clustering system the performance of a box was 
> 300calls per second -- having at least 5 database accesses!!!. If you 
> need double you can add one more hardware, without extra configuration 
> overhead, just plug and play. And that is stable version of OpenSER 
> since July this year (btw, for those who keep saying that OpenSER does 
> not focus on stability, just check the CVS and see the number of bugs 
> encountered with this release, maybe you can change your opinion), and 
> you can have a safe environment distributed geographically where each 
> hardware can undertake the traffic from the others on the fly. With 
> single box crashing because of different independent reasons (hardware 
> failure, power outages ...) you get no service ... with three boxes you 
> can serve huge number of active subscribers in peak hours and have 
> failover support, so service availability 100%. I am sure most of the 
> people look now how to build reliable platforms that scale very easy and 
> can be distributed around the world, with a bunch of useful features -- 
> simple first line replacement is not the business case for VoIP anymore.
> We didn't try at OpenSER to get a airplane when we have to drive city 
> streets, we looked to get feature rich and reliable application for its 
> use cases. I would propose to have focus on making own applications 
> better than trying to show the other one is worse.
> Cheers,
> Daniel
> PS. You can use stateless forwarding to get even better results, the 
> usefulness will be the same.
> On 11/21/06 12:30, Jiri Kuthan wrote:
> >Regarding the technical discussion, here are some hard numbers which show
> >how SER stack outperforms derivative work. Forwarding throughput is clearly
> >several times better under stress and consequently, variation of response
> >delay is rather stable.
> >
> >  
> >>http://www.iptel.org/~vku/performance/tm.serXopenser.pulpuk/
> >>    
> >
> >
> >-jiri
> >
> >
> >At 21:16 09/11/2006, Rao Ramaratnamma wrote:
> >  
> >>Hi Weiter,
> >>
> >>Yeah, I have been trying to limit myself to technical observations too, 
> >>but the governance aspect is somewhat interesting too as a hint for 
> >>future development, even though I guess even this is much more confusing 
> >>than the technical ones. I have investigated, both projects have their 
> >>firms with them that pursue their commercial interests which creates a 
> >>risk of possibly departing from the public interest, like with redhat. 
> >>From this angle they look quite similar. But if any worries me just a 
> >>little bit more than openser.  Appearance at commercial shows on the 
> >>"open" side versus technical event on the "net" side if I take your BSD 
> >>parallel, marketing "open" webpage accusing "net" version bad, hiding 
> >>root commerical sponsors on the "open" webpage, this could be signs for a 
> >>redhat-like doubleedged sword.  Hopefully I am oversensing because I mean 
> >>it is natural that everybody has SOME interest, but indisputably folks on 
> >>both sides have done good work, but same indisputably more TRANSPARENCY 
> >>would be helpful for both projects so that users can be less 
> >>investigative.
> >>
> >>But I agree the technical comparison you suggest will be very useful if 
> >>not most useful. This is what I am eventually upto. Anything folks have 
> >>to tell in this topic is most welcome like the retransmission timers in 
> >>subject or user loading.
> >>
> >>rr
> >>
> >>disconcerted by the fact that the more I know the more I am confused and 
> >>determined to get over the learning curve quickly. also excuse the abuse 
> >>I crossposted again but I think cross interrogation is a bit painful but 
> >>the more effective :-)
> >>
> >>----- Original Message ----
> >>From: Weiter Leiter <bp4mls at googlemail.com>
> >>To: Kim Il <kim_il_s at yahoo.com>
> >>Cc: users at openser.org
> >>Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2006 1:42:29 PM
> >>Subject: Re: Fw: [Users] TM : retransmission timers
> >>
> >>Common user barely has time to meet his boss requirements, rather than 
> >>playing around with different scenarios, platforms, environments. 
> >>I only read one email where Daniel stated that OpenSER now performs a 
> >>whole much better while loading users from database. SER guys put no 
> >>figure out yet, neither bare numbers nor comparisons. I'm just really 
> >>curious to see how both servers perform, that's all. 
> >>Even though I must maintain my SER, I kinda like OpenSER's faster 
> >>releases and developers' responsiveness (that I shamelessly exploit for 
> >>the common code left there :-), which is pretty much nonexistent with 
> >>iptel (at least this is the general belief here at OpenSER). But about 
> >>this I'll probably have to fight on SER's mailing list. I still wish that 
> >>one day I won't have to compare features; heck, NetSER and FreeSER are 
> >>still available ;-). 
> >>WL.
> >>
> >>PS. Maybe regretfully, I haven't seen any iptel booth at von this year, 
> >>while OpenSER guys put up a nice show. My congrats.
> >>
> >>On 11/9/06, Kim Il <<mailto:kim_il_s at yahoo.com>kim_il_s at yahoo.com> wrote: 
> >>I can see what you are hinting at, but I guess that the users are the 
> >>unbiased party that should do the judgment and not the parties who have 
> >>something to gain.
> >>cheers
> >>
> >>Weiter Leiter <<mailto:bp4mls at googlemail.com>bp4mls at googlemail.com> 
> >>wrote:  This features comparisons are not to last for too long, some 
> >>performance comparisons would also be nice. After all, there are plenty 
> >>of UA-level stacks out there. At least now that both projects get to have 
> >>stable releases after forking and some core functionality remained 
> >>shared. I wonder what "unbiased" organization will take up the challenge. 
> >>:-)
> >>On 11/8/06, Kim Il <<mailto:kim_il_s at yahoo.com> kim_il_s at yahoo.com > 
> >>wrote:  Mike,
> >>this is a really good start and we should collect these things  so as to 
> >>help the  community to take the right choice. I would also suggest that 
> >>what ever ground breaking issues we list we stay at the functional level 
> >>(I do not think anyone is helped by using a description containing 
> >>"allowing carrier grade platforms" and similar marketing phrases). cheers
> >>
> >>
> >>{truncated because too large}
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Sponsored Link 
> >>Talk more and pay less. Vonage can save you up to $300 a year on your 
> >>phone bill. 
> >><http://clk.atdmt.com/VON/go/yhxxxvon1080000017von/direct/01/>Sign up 
> >>now. 
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Users mailing list
> >>Users at openser.org
> >><http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users>http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Serusers mailing list
> >>Serusers at lists.iptel.org
> >>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> >>    
> >
> >--
> >Jiri Kuthan            http://iptel.org/~jiri/  
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Serusers mailing list
> >Serusers at lists.iptel.org
> >http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> >
> >  
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> Serusers at lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

Klaus Darilion

-------------- next part --------------
Index: call.cpp
--- call.cpp	(revision 32)
+++ call.cpp	(working copy)
@@ -1812,6 +1812,8 @@
           dest += sprintf(dest, "%s", (media_ip_is_ipv6 ? "6" : "4"));
         } else if(!strcmp(keyword, "call_number")) {
           dest += sprintf(dest, "%lu", number);
+        } else if(!strcmp(keyword, "call_number_6")) {
+          dest += sprintf(dest, "%06lu", number);
         } else if(!strcmp(keyword, "call_id")) {
           dest += sprintf(dest, "%s", id);
         } else if(!strcmp(keyword, "cseq")) {
@@ -2246,6 +2248,19 @@
+  /* quick hack for UAS and loose router - needed to use routes 
+   * in the same order as Record-Routes */
+  if (bRequestIncoming) {
+	  dialog_route_set = (char *)calloc(1, strlen(rr) + 2);
+	  sprintf(dialog_route_set, "%s", rr);
+	  if (strlen (contact)) {
+		  strcpy (next_req_url, contact);
+		  formatNextReqUrl (next_req_url);
+	  }
+	  return;
+  }
   char actual_rr[MAX_HEADER_LEN];
   char targetURI[MAX_HEADER_LEN];
   memset(actual_rr, 0, sizeof(actual_rr));

-------------- next part --------------
Serusers mailing list
Serusers at lists.iptel.org

More information about the Devel mailing list