[Serdev] SER's core design features(process model/parser/lumps/script) - was: So who/what is SER for, anyway?

[Martin Hoffmann]

Dragos Vingarzan wrote:
> =)) SNMP got on my list recently - so I threw the list away :-P.

Should be rather simple to have SNMP on the side with SER 2.0. However,
after playing with it for a while I came to the conclusion, that it
sucks (SNMP, not SER 2.0). I do monitoring with sipsak, serctl, ps, and
bash.

> I am more amazed that nobody pays attention to how IMS deals with
> scalability issues. Everybody here bashes IMS, yet I see lot's of
> "IMS-like" features being requested and implemented when nobody notices
> the context.
> 
> I am not saying that this is the way to go, but to me it seems more
> clean approach than the current one. For example, is there a civilized
> mechanism to move users between registrars so that you could take one
> offline and upgrade the hardware or something?

Sure thing. You will be surprised to hear that this works just fine for
me. Greger has even outlined the possible solutions somewhere on iptel.org.

> Greger V. Teigre wrote:
> >
> >     But, on the stuff that Martin writes about, operations, change
> > management, scalability, failover, etc, we have lots to learn. I'm
> > ashamed that there are no standardized way to monitor SER proxies,

That is just plain wrong. You wouldn't really believe I run a large
scale operation without monitoring my proxies, would you? True, there is
no drag-and-drop solution. But hey, every decent sysadmin is able to
write the necessary scripts in a couple of hours.

Regards,
Martin