[SR-Users] Is DMQ now the recommended way to do things?

[* Paolo Visintin - evosip.cloud]

Hello Henning,
Due to some analysis (thanks for the activity to Enrico Bandiera and
Giacomo Vacca) we found a bug in dmq module , internally made a quick and
dirty patch and opened a issue on GitHub !


Cheers

Il giorno sab 26 gen 2019 alle 19:19 * Paolo Visintin - evosip.cloud
<paolo.visintin at evosip.cloud> ha scritto:

>
> Hello Henning,
> Correctly understood, this is exactly what I've experienced (kamailio
> 5.2.0)
> I'll absolutely make a new lab-test and strace  !
>
> Thanks for your suggestion!
> Best regards
>
>
>
> Il giorno sab 26 gen 2019 alle ore 19:05 Henning Westerholt <
> hw at kamailio.org> ha scritto:
>
>> Am Samstag, 26. Januar 2019, 19:00:32 CET schrieb * Paolo Visintin -
>> > I'm using DMQ in order to share :
>> > - htable
>> > - usrloc
>> >
>> > for usrloc seems everything working as expected.
>> >
>> > on htable I have noticed, after some stresstest made with sipp (25 cps /
>> > 600 concurrent calls) that one of the nodes (or sometimes both) eat a
>> lot
>> > of cpu (300%) after stresstest ended [all processes idle except f4 dmq
>> > handlers]; I tried also to change some parameters on dmq module like
>> > worker_usleep with no changes at all.
>>
>> Hello Paolo,
>>
>> just commenting on the first issue:
>>
>> So I understood you correctly, after the stress-test you observe a not
>> ending
>> CPU load on the Kamailio server, even without load?
>>
>> Maybe you can have a look on the CPU consuming processes by attaching
>> e.g.
>> "strace" to them at the next occasion, to see what they are doing.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Henning
>>
>> > At last, using kamailio in a kubernetes system I have several kamailio
>> > instances that pops-up and then tiers down with different ips; for this
>> > reason dmq seems not able to delete peers, adding, for every defunct
>> node a
>> > warning like this :
>> > router-3 17(34) ERROR: dmq [notification_peer.c:599]:
>> > notification_resp_callback_f(): deleting server
>> > sip:172.28.1.211:5062;status=active
>> > because of failed request
>> > router-1 router-sr 17(33) ERROR: dmq [notification_peer.c:599]:
>> > notification_resp_callback_f(): deleting server
>> > sip:172.28.1.213:5062;status=active
>> > because of failed request
>> >
>> > Il giorno sab 26 gen 2019 alle ore 01:43 Alex Balashov <
>> >
>> > abalashov at evaristesys.com> ha scritto:
>> > > I think the realistic answer is that it's getting to be that way. I
>> > > think DMQ is now the recommended way to share usrloc and htable across
>> > > multiple hosts. DMQ+dialog is still a work in progress. Not sure about
>> > > DMQ+some other new stuff.
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 04:21:43PM +0000, Canuck . wrote:
>> > > > Before DMQ there were other ways to do similar things.  Is DMQ now
>> > > > considered the best way? Assuming I am using recent stable?
>> > > >
>> > > > Are there any good guides on clustering Kamailio?  I am not finding
>> a
>> > > > lot of good info on that subject.  Specifically, for multi
>> datacenter
>> > > > active active where things like floating IP's and keepalived are not
>> > > > really an option.
>>
>> --
>> Henning Westerholt - https://skalatan.de/blog/
>> Kamailio services - https://skalatan.de/services
>> Kamailio security assessment - https://skalatan.de/de/assessment
>>
> --

paolo visintin
direttore tecnico
------------------------------
timenet srl | www.timenet.it | tel 05711738000
assistenza tecnica: assistenza at timenet.it
ufficio commerciale: sales at timenet.it
ufficio amministrativo: contabilita at timenet.it
twitter.timenet.it | linkedin.timenet.it
<http://timenet.it/email/redirect.php>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kamailio.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20190221/aa31b0e6/attachment.html>