Closed #2698.

Reopened #2698.

good explanation from Daniel on the expected limitations :

``` Hello,

there was an issue on the tracker, but this looks like the redistribution due to percentage not being an integer number. I referred to the docs (being noted there), closed the issue and pointed to sr-users for further discussions.

So, for example, if there are 30 routes each with rweight of 50, that means total rweight of 1500. With that, each route has the percentage of 50*100/1500=3.33, which is rounded to 3, meaning that each destination gets 3 calls in 100, total 90, with the last one (which can be the first in the dispatcher list file, depending on internal sorting and instert) getting the remaining 10, overall 13 go to this route (so 19 routes will get 3 calls, and 1 will get 13 calls). Now, depending on the number of routes, one of them may get a different value, but the fact is that if the percentage isn't an integer number, then the distribution is not equal for one of them. For example, with the 6 routes:

total rweight => 6 * 50 = 300; then percentage per route is 50*100/300 = 16.6, rounded to 16, meaning one will get 20.

You may want to do a double check of the rweight algorithm code, I haven't implemented it, but for weight the above remarks apply.

That was discussed in the past on the mailing list, and very likely it is not a bug also in this case, but how the distribution can be spread across 100 calls.

Even more, for r/weight algorithms, it really makes no sense to use them when there are so many routes with same weight, practically on more than 50, each one will get 1 call and the last in the memory least will get 51. So one gets more than 50% of the calls. From the other perspective, this is not even feasible to route to all of them in the same step, because by default kamailio can create 12 branches for a request, with a maximum configurable value of 31 (iirc). I think round robin or call load distribution is better for such large number of routes.

Cheers, Daniel ```

We may be able to minimize the limitation of 100 slots be at least distributing the remainders. ``` /* if the array was not completely filled (i.e., the sum of rweights is * less than 100 due to truncated), then use last address to fill the rest */ last_insert = t > 0 ? dset->rwlist[t - 1] : (unsigned int)(dset->nr - 1); for(j = t; j < 100; j++) dset->rwlist[j] = last_insert; ```

@jchavanton: let's not use the issue tracker for discussing the documented behaviour of the stable branches.

I pointed to the docs in my comment closing earlier this issue and provided more details on sr-users mailing lists. If the devs use the issue tracker as a discussion forum, then we cannot request the other people not to do it.

If you want to discuss improvements/changes in behaviour, then use sr-dev mailing list or eventually open a feature request with appropriate details.

If @henningw reopened it because he believes it is an issue, not related to what is explicitly documented, disregarding my comment, then probably he can provide more details here.

Hello.

I'd like to introduce the point of view of user, while there is accurate feature description, it is hard to take into account the part after the point when you have 25 or more hosts. Let there are 100 calls. Than in case of 8 hosts and equal rweight value distribution will be more or less equal, simply because the difference between 100 and 96 (percentage is 12.5 so 12*8) is not big deal. But it is completely different case when there are 25 or 50 hosts: in this case percentage is 3.8 that gives 78 calls to distribute and 18 to go to single host. While of-course , I can achieve the same using different algorithm, I can't use algorithm when results is dependent to different aspects than it is expected - not only the rweight value controls the result but the number of hosts as well.

Closed #2698.