[Serusers] usrloc and replication

Mon Mar 28 21:06:57 CEST 2005

db_mode is not related to reliability but just a matter of performance. I 
would say t_replicate and db_mode are not related in any way, or I miss 
something.

  Nils

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