[SR-Users] rtpengine in stateless kamailio
Richard Fuchs
rfuchs at sipwise.com
Wed Jan 2 14:44:40 CET 2019
On 02/01/2019 07.45, Yuriy Gorlichenko wrote:
> Hi!
> Happy new year to all!!!
>
> Look like I am first in this year wit hthe questions in this list :-).
>
> I'm using stateless kamailio and RTPengnine to build some kind of the
> stateless cluster
> I found that kamailio keeps some data in the SHMEM in case of using
> RTPengine module even if it is not a rtpengine_manage function but
> offer/answer/delete
>
> In this case if INVITE (offer) handled by 1-st kamailio in my cluster,
> and BYE/CANCEL handled by second kamailio in the cluster - 1-st
> kamailio (which has been used for offer) will hase kinda internal
> "memory leak" (in SHMEM it never decrased)
>
> At the rtpengine module source I found some transation dependencies
> for the rtpengine_manage function but did not find for the
> offer/answer/delete
> I supposed these 3 functions just sending requests to the rtpnegine
> with keys and not storing anything
>
> So my question - is it possible to use RTPengine module in stateless
> way to avoid internal "memory leak" because in my scenario I have big
> chance never receive BYE/CANCEL on the machine that started handle
> particular call
This is probably the module-internal hash table that is used to make
sure that signalling relating to the same call is always sent to the
same rtpengine instance. This hash table does have a configurable
timeout value (`hash_table_tout`, defaults to 1 hour), which makes it
possible to still use it in a way you've described. However, from the
code it's my understanding that timed out hash table entries are only
deleted when they're encountered during processing, so it's not entirely
deterministic that old entries are always deleted after they've timed
out. The RPC command `rtpengine.get_hash_total` can be used to inspect
the current size of the hash table.
Cheers
More information about the sr-users
mailing list