[SR-Users] Too many packets in rtpengine UDP receive queue
Mititelu Stefan
fanx07 at gmail.com
Sun Dec 27 16:01:41 CET 2015
> Should I still concern about this log info?
>
IMO, no. If you see no strange logs for the streams of a specific call,
_after_ they have been confirmed and kernelized, you should have no
worries. The logs you see before the streams of a specific call are
confirmed and kernelized are normal behaviour; try decreasing the
rtpengine's log level to reduce the I/O log operations.
Regards,
Stefan
On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Zodiac <mozillafire at bupt.edu.cn> wrote:
> Hello, friend.
>
> Actually I set my rtpengine on a physical machine before I sent you my
> first reply to you. Problem still exists.
>
> Now I changed some iptables rules and I can get info from “cat list” under
> the table 0. It prints these:
>
> local inet4 10.109.247.87:30008
> src inet4 10.109.247.87:30058
> dst inet4 10.205.42.195:56220
> stats: 14964 bytes, 87 packets,
> 0 errors
> RTP payload type 0: 0 bytes,
> 0 packets
> RTP payload type 3: 0 bytes,
> 0 packets
> RTP payload type 8: 0 bytes,
> 0 packets
> RTP payload type 9: 0 bytes,
> 0 packets
> RTP payload type 101: 0 bytes,
> 0 packets
> RTP payload type 105: 0 bytes,
> 0 packets
> RTP payload type 106: 0 bytes,
> 0 packets
> local inet4 10.109.247.87:30042
> src inet4 10.109.247.87:30066
> dst inet4 10.205.42.195:55744
> stats: 77399 bytes, 68 packets,
> 0 errors
> RTP payload type 96: 0 bytes,
> 0 packets
> local inet4 10.109.247.87:30058
> src inet4 10.109.247.87:30008
> dst inet4 10.205.42.195:33875
> stats: 14448 bytes, 84 packets,
> 0 errors
> RTP payload type 0: 0 bytes,
> 0 packets
> RTP payload type 3: 0 bytes,
> 0 packets
> RTP payload type 8: 0 bytes,
> 0 packets
> RTP payload type 9: 0 bytes,
> 0 packets
> RTP payload type 96: 0 bytes,
> 0 packets
> RTP payload type 97: 0 bytes,
> 0 packets
> RTP payload type 98: 0 bytes,
> 0 packets
> RTP payload type 99: 0 bytes,
> 0 packets
> RTP payload type 101: 0 bytes,
> 0 packets
> RTP payload type 102: 0 bytes,
> 0 packets
> RTP payload type 103: 0 bytes,
> 0 packets
> RTP payload type 105: 0 bytes,
> 0 packets
> RTP payload type 106: 0 bytes,
> 0 packets
> RTP payload type 107: 0 bytes,
> 0 packets
> RTP payload type 108: 0 bytes,
> 0 packets
> RTP payload type 109: 0 bytes,
> 0 packets
> local inet4 10.109.247.87:30066
> src inet4 10.109.247.87:30042
> dst inet4 10.205.42.195:39177
> stats: 34105 bytes, 34 packets,
> 0 errors
> RTP payload type 96: 0 bytes,
> 0 packets
> RTP payload type 97: 0 bytes,
> 0 packets
> RTP payload type 102: 0 bytes,
> 0 packets
>
> But I still got info like this:
>
>
> Dec 26 18:29:30 localhost rtpengine[2946]:
> [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30383] More than 30
> duplicate packets detected, dropping packet to avoid potential loop
> Dec 26 18:29:30 localhost rtpengine[2946]:
> [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30403] More than 30
> duplicate packets detected, dropping packet to avoid potential loop
> Dec 26 18:29:31 localhost rtpengine[2946]:
> [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30375] More than 30
> duplicate packets detected, dropping packet to avoid potential loop
> Dec 26 18:29:32 localhost rtpengine[2946]:
> [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30375] More than 30
> duplicate packets detected, dropping packet to avoid potential loop
> Dec 26 18:29:34 localhost rtpengine[2946]:
> [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30382] Confirmed
> peer address as 10.205.42.195:47974
> Dec 26 18:29:34 localhost rtpengine[2946]:
> [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30342] Confirmed
> peer address as 10.205.42.195:64642
> Dec 26 18:29:34 localhost rtpengine[2946]:
> [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30342] Kernelizing
> media stream: 10.205.42.195:64642
> Dec 26 18:29:34 localhost rtpengine[2946]:
> [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30402] Confirmed
> peer address as 10.205.42.195:48421
> Dec 26 18:29:34 localhost rtpengine[2946]:
> [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30382] Kernelizing
> media stream: 10.205.42.195:47974
> Dec 26 18:29:34 localhost rtpengine[2946]:
> [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30374] Confirmed
> peer address as 10.205.42.195:58668
> Dec 26 18:29:34 localhost rtpengine[2946]:
> [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30374] Kernelizing
> media stream: 10.205.42.195:58668
> Dec 26 18:29:34 localhost rtpengine[2946]:
> [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30402] Kernelizing
> media stream: 10.205.42.195:48421
> Dec 26 18:29:34 localhost rtpengine[2946]:
> [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30375] Confirmed
> peer address as 10.205.42.195:58669
> Dec 26 18:29:34 localhost rtpengine[2946]:
> [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30375] More than 30
> duplicate packets detected, dropping packet to avoid potential loop
> Dec 26 18:29:34 localhost rtpengine[2946]:
> [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30343] Confirmed
> peer address as 10.205.42.195:64643
> Dec 26 18:29:34 localhost rtpengine[2946]:
> [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30343] More than 30
> duplicate packets detected, dropping packet to avoid potential loop
> Dec 26 18:29:35 localhost rtpengine[2946]:
> [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30375] More than 30
> duplicate packets detected, dropping packet to avoid potential loop
> Dec 26 18:29:35 localhost rtpengine[2946]:
> [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30403] Confirmed
> peer address as 10.205.42.195:36390
> Dec 26 18:29:35 localhost rtpengine[2946]:
> [79049NzkxNmM1ZjAyMDMxYTgyYTI1NzBmNzQxN2YyOWIzNGU port 30383] Confirmed
> peer address as 10.205.42.195:34933
>
> The video call is great without much delay or noise. So any reasons else?
> Should I still concern about this log info?
>
>
> 在 2015年12月26日，03:32，Mititelu Stefan <fanx07 at gmail.com> 写道：
>
> 1.In fact I am not quite sure about what you mean for the first question.
>> I am running the rtpengine daemon downloaded from github, sip
>> wise/rtpengine.
>>
> What does 'dpkg -l | grep rtp' show?
>
>
>> 2.There is nothing prompt on command cat /proc/rtpengine/0/list. The file
>> is 0 bytes and empty.
>>
> That means your streams are not kernelized and all the traffic passes
> through user space. I have never run rtpengine software on a virtual
> machine so I don't know if it should kernelize the streams in this case;
> you could try it. On real hardware, it should. Thus you should get rid of
> those errors.
> Check point '1.' and make sure that you have the necessary packages
> needed for kernelizing the streams referred in [1] (i.e.
> ngcp-rtpengine-kernel-dkms, ngcp-rtpengine-iptables) along with the
> rtpengine daemon (ngcp-rtpengine-daemon); those should be the minimum
> packages needed. Grep the README for "in-kernel" keyword for more info.
>
>
>> 3.Our kamailio is using loose route.
>>
> I was asking about "strict source" form README [1]. Nothing related to
> kamailio's 'lr=' parameter (if that is what you meant). However your
> problem is at point 2.
>
> Regards,
> Stefan Mititelu
>
> [1] https://github.com/sipwise/rtpengine
> _______________________________________________
> SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
> sr-users at lists.sip-router.org
> http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>
>
> ------------------------------------
> 北京邮电大学网络技术研究院
> 网络与交换技术国家重点实验室
> 田军
> +86 18810315790
> mozillafire at bupt.edu.cn
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
> sr-users at lists.sip-router.org
> http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20151227/8ce12cd3/attachment.html>
More information about the sr-users
mailing list