2 Apr
2012
2 Apr
'12
5:39 p.m.
Hi Peter,
Sounds like a useful feature. Indeed 5 seconds is immediate for normal
presence (availability status)and we shouldn't require more frequent
notifications. Klaus was talking about 'dialog' event where this feature
is actually not useful as the status changes quite fast.
More than this, as you mentioned, having a special notifier process will
also solve the problem of bad cseq due to concurrency, so even the more
useful.
From what I understand this solution will work only if using DB_ONLY
mode. WRITE_THROUGH mode is actually useless if this feature is used(as
it was actually helping not to query the active_watchers table for
sending notifies) . This should be kept in mind and mentioned in the
documentation.
On 03/30/2012 03:10 PM, Peter Dunkley wrote:
Hi,
With further thinking I'd like to do something along these lines:
- Leave the presentity table and handling alone.
- When a new modparam (notifier_poll_rate) is non zero set a flag
(with value based on a hash of the Call-ID of the dialog) in the
dialog indicating a NOTIFY is required (either for all watchers of a
presentity after a PUBLISH, or just one dialog after a SUBSCRIBE), but
do not send NOTIFY requests immediately.
- Have a notifier process (running on a timer as per my last change to
RLS) that checks for dialogs needing updated (a subset each time it is
run based on flag value) and sends NOTIFY requests.
- Each time the notifier runs 1/(waitn_time * notifier_poll_rate) of
the dialogs is checked. waitn_time is another new modparam.
- Sensible values of notifier_poll_rate and waitn_time are 10 and 5
(default) respectively. This means the notifier checks for work 10
times a second, and NOTIFY requests take at most 5 seconds to be
sent. The default for notifier_poll_rate will be 0 which means use
the existing behaviour.
I will need to make sure that, when in DB only mode and with the
notifier enabled, I do not retrieve the dialogs when doing the
immediate processing of a PUBLISH. Simply doing an update() on the
flags and checking affected_rows() (if available) should be enough.
Similarly, when I receive a SUBSCRIBE I should update the remote CSeq
and the flags at the same time, and I can use affected_rows() (if
available) to confirm the dialog exists and send the right response.
This should minimise the DB impact of this change.
Indeed, no need to query the active_watchers table from anywhere else
except the notifier process. And actually, when Publish is received you
don't even need to know if there were rows to update or not.
The solution sounds very good to me.
Good luck on implementing it and thanks for sharing :) .
Regards,
Anca
This should have the effect of maintaining the existing behaviour for
those who need/want it, evening out the sending of NOTIFY requests as
much as possible, ensuring a NOTIFY is always sent in a timely fashion
(within 5 seconds should count as immediate for a NOTIFY after a
SUBSCRIBE).
Once this works with a single notifier process it should be quite
simple to extend it to having a pool of notifier processes if that is
required.
How does this sound?
Regards,
Peter
On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 09:26 +0100, Peter Dunkley wrote:
Hi,
When running a soak on presence with RLS NOTIFY requests are by far
the most common. Further, especially with RLS in place, performance
of Kamailio presence can be quite limited. The writers of the
presence RFCs do seem to acknowledge that this is indeed an issue -
hence the restrictions on the rate at which NOTIFY requests can be sent.
I am looking for ways to sensibly reduce the number of NOTIFYs
generated, and in this case, it seems that the presence module is
actually sending them more frequently than the specification says it
should anyway.
Reducing the number of NOTIFYs sent doesn't just help with presence,
but it should also reduce the amount of work that the RLS module has
to do too - as it will receive (and have to process) less NOTIFYs as
well.
Of course I am open to other ways to approach this problem. Another
thing I have been considering is setting the flags and fields I have
discussed below but not sending NOTIFYs right away at all. I would
then have a timer task (perhaps at the 100ms you suggest below) that
generates outstanding NOTIFYs - but not at a rate of more than once
per five seconds for each presentity. Effectively, this timer task
would be a notifier, which I think is one of the things suggested
recently on the list.
Regards,
Peter
On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 10:01 +0200, Klaus Darilion wrote:
Ah... But define immediately. A 2XX response should also be sent
immediately after every SUBSCRIBE, but the timeout is 64*T1 (32
seconds). So a NOTIFY that, in many cases, comes out right away, or
in the worst case within 5 to 10 seconds, should count as immediate.
As you say, if I receive a PUBLISH and then a re-SUBSCRIBE to a
presentity then I will send out NOTIFYs too often. I have seen (bad)
clients that re-PUBLISH immediately before re-SUBSCRIBE and
un-PUBLISH immediately before un-SUBSCRIBE. If a lot of people use
these bad clients then you have a problem.
Of course :-)
--
Peter Dunkley
Technical Director
Crocodile RCS Ltd
On 29.03.2012 23:19, Peter Dunkley wrote:
I don't understand what this has to do with calls. I am just talking
about NOTIFY requests from presence after a change in presentity or a
SUBSCRIBE.
Hi,
RFC 3856 section 6.10 states: "A PA SHOULD NOT generate notifications for
a single presentity at a rate of more than once every five seconds."
I wonder if this is useful. E.g. a user tries to call somebody, but the
target is busy. Thus, the call will last maybe 3 seconds having the
dialog states: trying, proceeding, early, terminated.
How is it supposed to work? It just sends trying, but no the others? Or
will they be queued, so only trying, and 5 seconds later, terminated is
sent?
I would like to add this to the presence module (making the rate
configurable).
I have an idea as to how I would like to do it:
- Add a last notified time-stamp field to each presentity
- Add a updated since last notified flag field to each presentity
- Add a notify required flag field to each active_watcher
- When a presentity is updated the last notified time-stamp is checked.
If the time is far enough in the past the notifies are sent and the
time-stamp is updated. If enough time has not passed the updated since
flag is set for the presentity and the notify required flag is set for all
active_watchers of that presentity.
- When a presentity is subscribed to (this includes re-subscribes) the
last notified time-stamp is checked. If the time is far enough in the
past the (single) notify is sent and the time-stamp is updated. If enough
time has not passed the updated since flag is set for the presentity and
the notify required flag is set for this active_watcher record.
RFC3265 states that a NOTIFY MUST sent immediately after every SUBSCRIBE.
- A
timer (the minimum time between subscribes - default 5 seconds) is
run. On expiry a query is done on the presentity table for presentities
that have been updated _AND_ the last notified time is more than the
minimum time ago. For each of these presentities, a query is done on the
active_watchers for watchers of that presentity that have the notify
required flag set. Notifies containing the presentities are then sent to
the watchers waiting on them.
This should ensure that no presentity notifies more than it should, while
ensuring that all changes are (eventually) sent out, and all subscribes
result in a notify (eventually) being sent. Eventually being typically
within 5 seconds and in under 10 seconds in the worst case (assuming the
default setting of 5 seconds).
Can anyone see any problems with this?
I wonder why you delay NOTIFYs for (re)SUBSCRIBEs? On (re)SUBSCRIBEs
just NOTIFY with last published state and do not set the "notify
required" flag. Then it may happen that the minimum NOTIFY interval is
not maintained the first few seconds after a (re)SUBSCRIBE but IMO this
is not that bad and enables immediate notification after every
(re)SUBSCRIBE.
Are
there any objections to me implementing this?
Make it configurable :-) E.g. setting "minimum_notification_delay" to 0
disables the feature.
It may also increase DB load and cause more
race-conditions (to be
resolved with DB-transactions) due to more DB lookups.
It also helps with a race condition I think I am seeing (and similar
to that recently discussed on this list) where you can have more than
one NOTIFY outstanding on a dialog at a time, and if these get out of
sequence then you do definitely get problems.
While there may be more DB load overall, I suspect that because this
helps spread it out somewhat it should make the performance more
even. Also many of these queries will be much simpler and lighter as
I do not need to always retrieve the presentity field, which is
particularly large.
E.g. what if the timer finds a presentity for
which NOTIFYs needs to be
sent and - while iterating over all the presentities - a new PUBLISH is
received which triggers immediate NOTIFY. It may happen that both
processes manipulate the active watchers table at the same time (notify
required flag).
Is this not also a problem with rls_presentity which uses a very
similar mechanism already?
In
theory running a (5 second) timer could make presence "lumpy" in the
same way RLS is (see my previous email). However, if this proves to be
the case I believe the same mechanism I have proposed for RLS can be used
here.
Why run the timer only every 5 seconds? Run it every second (or 100ms)
then it should not be lumpy anymore. regards
Klaus
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org <mailto:sr-dev@lists.sip-router.org>
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
