9 Apr
2005
9 Apr
'05
11:38 a.m.
connected mode.
Jan.
On 06-04 22:34, Richard wrote:
Thanks Jan. It is really good to know.
I tried udp, got quite a few udp connections even for a very low volume test
system, a netstat -na shows,
udp 0 0 127.0.0.1:5059 0.0.0.0:*
udp 0 0 127.0.0.1:33098 127.0.0.1:5059 ESTABLISHED
udp 0 0 127.0.0.1:33099 127.0.0.1:5059 ESTABLISHED
udp 0 0 127.0.0.1:33100 127.0.0.1:5059 ESTABLISHED
udp 0 0 127.0.0.1:33101 127.0.0.1:5059 ESTABLISHED
udp 0 0 127.0.0.1:33102 127.0.0.1:5059 ESTABLISHED
udp 0 0 127.0.0.1:33103 127.0.0.1:5059 ESTABLISHED
udp 0 0 127.0.0.1:33104 127.0.0.1:5059 ESTABLISHED
udp 0 0 66.1.2.7:35032 0.0.0.0:*
udp 0 0 66.1.2.7:35033 0.0.0.0:*
udp 0 0 66.1.2.7:35034 0.0.0.0:*
udp 0 0 66.1.2.7:35035 0.0.0.0:*
You can see only one rtpproxy session here. But there are a bunch of
connections for port 5059 which rtpproxy listens to.
Any suggestions?
Thanks,
Richard
-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Janak [mailto:jan@iptel.org]
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 2:29 AM
To: Richard
Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] rtpproxy locks up ser
Try to use UDP instead of unix domain sockets for the communication
between ser and rtpproxy. The the rtpproxy blocks for some reason, UDP
packets would be simply dropped and SER would continue to process
another SIP request.
Jan.
On 30-03 10:22, Richard wrote:
Hi,
I don't know if anyone has experienced this. The ser stops getting any
packets, ser log shows no activity. When I do "netstat -an", I got this,
Proto Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address Foreign Address
State
udp 261580 0 80.1.2.3:5060
0.0.0.0:*
udp 85224 0 0.0.0.0:35940 0.0.0.0:*
udp 0 0 0.0.0.0:35941 0.0.0.0:*
udp 47704 0 0.0.0.0:35942 0.0.0.0:*
udp 0 0 0.0.0.0:35943 0.0.0.0:*
I restarted ser several times, didn't help. So I restarted rtpproxy. Ser
started processing packets and the recv-q drops to 0. I wonder what
could
cause recv-Q accumulating packets. Everything was
running fine without
any
problem for a long time. I haven't made any
change to either ser or
rtpproxy
> recently.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers