[SR-Users] async_workers vs. async workers modparam in case of async_route()

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla]

Hello,


On 21/11/16 06:41, Alex Balashov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If I am using async_route() with delay, what is the relationship
> between the core async_workers parameter value and the async module
> 'workers' modparam?
>
> This doc change was intended to clarify it, I think:
>
> https://www.mail-archive.com/sr-dev@lists.sip-router.org/msg25002.html
>
> But it does not for me:
>
> > Number of worker processes to be started to handle the
> > asynchronous tasks for async_route() and async_sleep().
>
> So, does that mean the module starts its own processes for these
> cases? If so, does that mean I don't need core async_workers at all?
> Or do I? If I do, what happens if I have fewer core async_workers than
> modparam workers? What if I have more? Should I aim to keep them in sync?
the workers param for async module was added with the first
implementation of the module, as a proof of how to do async ops in
kamailio.cfg besides the t_suspend()/t_continue().

As there were more components getting to do async ops, I added
async_workers in the core so a common pool of extra processes is created
and can be shared by many modules.

At this moment, from what I remember by heart, mysql module and async
(when using async_task_route()) use async_workers from the core.

I don't recall exactly, but somehow I planned to switch async module to
use only processes from the core, but I thought that it can break
existing configs.

To answer further, you don't need to keep them in sycn and you don't
need core async workers if you use only async_route() (or async_sleep(),
but this one has some traps highlighted in the readme, so I try not to
promote it that much).

Cheers,
Daniel

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio Advanced Training, Berlin, Nov 28-30, 2016 - http://www.asipto.com