25 Aug
2024
25 Aug
'24
2:30 p.m.
Good to hear, I’ll start increasing the children to see what happens. It’s a good start
point.
On the other hand, we have different Kamailio implementations where no http or any kind of
‘external integration’ is involved and we get a lot more calls, it’s very clear where the
problem is :)
Thanks for you help (again)
Enviado desde dispositivo móvil
El 25 ago 2024, a la(s) 1:47 a. m., Alex Balashov via
sr-users <sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org> escribió:
A few hundred CPS per node is impressive, but especially so when anything with HTTP is
involved! Kamailio has HTTP client modules, but there's no pretending that being an
HTTP client is natural or particularly performant for Kamailio.
Since most--not all, but most--of the workload is I/O wait, you could get away with just
adding more children. The general principle that children should not exceed CPUs, because
they'd just fight for CPU, applies when the workload is CPU-bound, or computational in
nature. However, if most of the time is spent waiting on something to come across a
socket, e.g. from a database or an HTTP server, you can overbook quite a bit relative to
the CPUs.
You still don't want too many child processes, and I would be hard-pressed to say
exactly how many is too many, but 2:1 or 3:1 should be safe.
-- Alex
On Aug 24, 2024, at 10:35 PM, Alexis Fidalgo
<alzrck(a)gmail.com> wrote:
it is. im dealing with this issue since a few weeks, i can push and add more cpu’s and
more children and play with queues, timeouts, etc etc. but i know, im pretty sure that
there’s a limit i can't surpass.
at this point im struggling on how to modify the http part (the api server) it would be
great (and easy for me) if the execution pipelines can at least have some part where in
can execute in parallel, but … a pipeline, why to execute following steps if not needed vs
‘execute and discard’ (and worst, some consumed webservices in the pipeline are
transactional charged).
im happy, more that that, a docker swarm with 4 nodes with 10cpu/children each are
handling ~1300 call attempls (invite,100,302,ack) per second, thats more than ok (and
cpu/mem are low, really low, problem is the wait, no the power), but we need more (ill
move to more cores/childrens and appeal to brute force by now to gain some time)
still seeing there’s no point to start using TM for a 100% stateless flow
--
Alex Balashov
Principal Consultant
Evariste Systems LLC
Web: https://evaristesys.com
Tel: +1-706-510-6800
__________________________________________________________
Kamailio - Users Mailing List - Non Commercial Discussions
To unsubscribe send an email to sr-users-leave(a)lists.kamailio.org
Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only to the sender!
Edit mailing list options or unsubscribe: On 24 Aug
2024, at 9:02 PM, Alex Balashov via sr-users <sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org> wrote:
Not overtly related to your most immediate question, but:
1) "we're hitting a limit where all children become busy waiting for the API to
answer."
2) "So i decided to move to http_async_client"
I'm not sure this is really going to solve your problem. You've hit fundamental,
thermodynamic kind of limits here. Using async here just squeezes the balloon in one place
and causes it to inflate in another.
It would be different if some of your workload were HTTP-dependent and other parts of the
workload were not. Doing the HTTP queries would free up the core SIP workers to process
other kinds of requests. That doesn't sound like it's the case, so all you're
really liberating is reply processing, which, if this is a redirect server, is nonexistent
anyway.
This matter might occasion some deeper reflection.
-- Alex
On Aug 24, 2024, at 6:48 PM, alexis via sr-users
<sr-users(a)lists.kamailio.org> wrote:
Hello all, context first, we have an REST API that performs queries to external devices
in the network (diameter to DRA's, REST to different servers) and based on n
conditions returns the content for a Contact header to be used in a SIP 302.
Now we're consuming this API with http_client (synchronously) and as there's no
way to speed up the API (pipeline executions, delays on external api's etc etc)
we're hitting a limit where all children become busy waiting for the API to answer.
So i decided to move to http_async_client and started working on it on the lab with this
first and base concept to test.
request_route {
#for testing purposes only
if(is_method("ACK")){
exit;
}
$http_req(all) = $null;
$http_req(suspend) = 1;
$http_req(timeout) = 500;
$http_req(method) = "POST";
$http_req(hdr) = "Content-Type: application/json";
jansson_set("string", "event", "sip-routing",
"$var(cre_query)");
xlog("L_INFO","API ASYNC ROUTING REQUEST: $var(cre_query)\n");
$http_req(body) = $var(cre_query);
t_newtran();
http_async_query("http://192.168.86.128:8000/", "CRE_RESPONSE");
}
http://192.168.86.128:8000/ receives the POST, randomly creates a delay between 0.5 and 1
second and responds (simulating the real api with an excess delay to probe the concept)
Then
route[CRE_RESPONSE] {
if ($http_ok && $http_rs == 200) {
xlog("L_INFO","CRE RESPONSE: $http_rb\n");
# for testing purpose, Contact content will be replaced from the received api response
append_to_reply("Contact: <sip:1234@google.com>\r\n");
send_reply(302,"Moved Temporarily");
exit;
}
send_reply(500, "Internal error");
exit;
}
INVITE is received and processed, API is called, after API response, 302 is replied and
then an ACK (ignored by now).
Situation is that the 302 retransmitted
37 1519.846253067 192.168.86.34 → 192.168.86.128 SIP/SDP 585 Request: INVITE
sip:service@192.168.86.128:5060 |
38 1519.848100380 192.168.86.128 → 192.168.86.34 SIP 318 Status: 100 Trying |
39 1520.094997642 192.168.86.128 → 192.168.86.34 SIP 407 Status: 302 Moved Temporarily |
40 1520.102323728 192.168.86.34 → 192.168.86.128 SIP 453 Request: ACK
sip:service@192.168.86.128:5060 |
41 1520.591300933 192.168.86.128 → 192.168.86.34 SIP 407 Status: 302 Moved Temporarily |
42 1521.591061065 192.168.86.128 → 192.168.86.34 SIP 407 Status: 302 Moved Temporarily |
43 1523.591227956 192.168.86.128 → 192.168.86.34 SIP 407 Status: 302 Moved Temporarily |
18(24) DEBUG: tm [t_reply.c:1703]: t_retransmit_reply(): reply retransmitted.
buf=0x7f6d79745dc0: SIP/2.0 3..., shmem=0x7f6d75187fd8: SIP/2.0 3
18(24) DEBUG: tm [t_reply.c:1703]: t_retransmit_reply(): reply retransmitted.
buf=0x7f6d79745dc0: SIP/2.0 3..., shmem=0x7f6d75187fd8: SIP/2.0 3
18(24) DEBUG: tm [t_reply.c:1703]: t_retransmit_reply(): reply retransmitted.
buf=0x7f6d79745dc0: SIP/2.0 3..., shmem=0x7f6d75187fd8: SIP/2.0 3
18(24) DEBUG: tm [timer.c:634]: wait_handler(): finished transaction: 0x7f6d75184cc8
(p:0x7f6d74f600c8/n:0x7f6d74f600c8)
18(24) DEBUG: tm [h_table.c:132]: free_cell_helper(): freeing transaction 0x7f6d75184cc8
from timer.c:643
Any help to avoid the retransmission and make the transaction just finish right after the
302 will be appreciated.
regards
__________________________________________________________
Kamailio - Users Mailing List - Non Commercial Discussions
To unsubscribe send an email to sr-users-leave(a)lists.kamailio.org
Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only to the sender!
Edit mailing list options or unsubscribe:
--
Alex Balashov
Principal Consultant
Evariste Systems LLC
Web: https://evaristesys.com
Tel: +1-706-510-6800
__________________________________________________________
Kamailio - Users Mailing List - Non Commercial Discussions
To unsubscribe send an email to sr-users-leave(a)lists.kamailio.org
Important: keep the mailing list in the recipients, do not reply only to the sender!
Edit mailing list options or unsubscribe: