On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Jiri Kuthan jiri@iptel.org wrote:
Pascal Maugeri wrote:
Thanks for the suggestion Jiri. So far I have been monitoring sr and I know that the TCP async implementation might resolve some problems we're facing with kamailio.
But I'm a bit conservative and I want to do several verifications of sr before doing the "switch". So for now we stick to kamailio.
Does this TCP supervisor process priority sounds familiar to you for tuning kamailio ?
not really -- I sort of think that studying tuning of something what is overdue for an update may cost you lot of time and bring less results.
Sorry Jiri, but I disagree with you : if I understood well kamailio is still maintained as a product and will see future evolutions. And I'm pretty sure I will get some new issues to solve if we switch to sip-router. I need some time before doing this.
Cheers -pascal
-jiri
Regards, Pascal
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:25 AM, Jiri Kuthan <jiri@iptel.org mailto: jiri@iptel.org> wrote:
if you are concerned about TCP performance (Which may be a justified concern -- from any possible viewpoint TCP is not easy for SIP), I suggest you consider the sip-router core. There has been (and I think still will be) tremendous effort put in it.
-jiri
Pascal Maugeri wrote:
Hi I recently read the following in order to optimize OpenSER in handling TCP connections: "First, the TCP supervisor process must be given an elevated priority level in order to prevent anomalous behavior due to the Linux scheduler." First of all, as this is quite old paper (it refers to OpenSER1.2), I'm wondering if such a tuning is still needed for Kamailio 1.5 branch ? If yes, how can I do this ?
Regards, Pascal _______________________________________________ Kamailio (OpenSER) - Users mailing list Users@lists.kamailio.org <mailto:Users@lists.kamailio.org> http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users http://lists.openser-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users