[SR-Users] Weight balancing with dispatcher module

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla]

Hello,

can try with latest version in 4.2 series? There was a fix to weight
based balancing quite some time ago, but it might be after 4.2.4 was
released.

Cheers,
Daniel

On 15/10/15 18:11, Ben Bliss wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am having issues getting the dispatcher to work using weighting. I
> have been digging through old posts to the list, and tried all that I
> have found, but am still having no luck at all.
>
> So, information...
>
> version: kamailio 4.2.4 (amd64/freebsd) be62bd
> flags: STATS: Off, USE_TCP, USE_TLS, TLS_HOOKS, USE_RAW_SOCKS,
> DISABLE_NAGLE, USE_MCAST, DNS_IP_HACK, SHM_MEM, SHM_MMAP, PKG_MALLOC,
> F_MALLOC, DBG_F_MALLOC, USE_PTHREAD_MUTEX, USE_DNS_CACHE,
> USE_DNS_FAILOVER, USE_NAPTR, USE_DST_BLACKLIST, HAVE_RESOLV_RES
> MAX_RECV_BUFFER_SIZE 262144, MAX_LISTEN 16, MAX_URI_SIZE 1024,
> BUF_SIZE 65535, DEFAULT PKG_SIZE 8MB
> poll method support: poll, select, kqueue.
> id: be62bd
>
> Dispatcher configuration...
>
> modparam("dispatcher", "db_url", DBURL)
> modparam("dispatcher", "table_name", "dispatcher")
> modparam("dispatcher", "flags", 3)
> modparam("dispatcher", "force_dst", 1)
> modparam("dispatcher", "dst_avp", "$avp(AVP_DST)")
> modparam("dispatcher", "grp_avp", "$avp(AVP_GRP)")
> modparam("dispatcher", "cnt_avp", "$avp(AVP_CNT)")
>
> Dialplan config..
>
> route[DISPATCH] {
>         if(!ds_select_dst("1", "9"))
>         {
>                 send_reply("404", "No destination");
>                 exit;
>         }
>         xlog("L_DBG", "--- SCRIPT: going to <$ru> via <$du>\n");
>         t_on_failure("RTF_DISPATCH");
>         return;
>
> I am loading the values from a database, which are being loaded fine,
> and appear to be being formatted correctly aswell..
>
> +----+-------+-------------------------+-------+----------+------------+----------------------+
>
> | id | setid | destination             | flags | priority | attrs     
> | description          |
> +----+-------+-------------------------+-------+----------+------------+----------------------+
>
> |  1 |     1 | sipx.x.x.106:5060 |     8 |        1 | weight=100 |   
>                             |
> |  2 |     1 | sip:x.x.x.107:5060 |     8 |        1 | weight=0   |   
>                              |
> +----+-------+-------------------------+-------+----------+------------+----------------------+
>
>
> The IP's are public, so i've masked them... The following is from
> kamcmd..
>
> {
>         NRSETS: 1
>         RECORDS: {
>                 SET: {
>                         ID: 1
>                         TARGETS: {
>                                 DEST: {
>                                         URI: sip:x.x.x.107:5060
>                                         FLAGS: AP
>                                         PRIORITY: 1
>                                         ATTRS: {
>                                                 BODY: weight=0
>                                                 DUID:
>                                                 MAXLOAD: 0
>                                                 WEIGHT: 0
>                                         }
>                                 }
>                                 DEST: {
>                                         URI: sip:x.x.x106:5060
>                                         FLAGS: AP
>                                         PRIORITY: 1
>                                         ATTRS: {
>                                                 BODY: weight=100
>                                                 DUID:
>                                                 MAXLOAD: 0
>                                                 WEIGHT: 100
>                                         }
>                                 }
>                         }
>                 }
>         }
> }
>
> However, when any call is placed, it will always goto the server
> ending 107 (with weight 0, which means, as far as I understand, it
> should be ignored). I've tried with ; after the weights, this made no
> change either.
>
> When set to round robin, or via priority, it appears to work fine.
>
> Any ideas?
>

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Book: SIP Routing With Kamailio - http://www.asipto.com