28 Mar
2006
28 Mar
'06
12:44 p.m.
So, are you saying, based on the email you sent (which I just found) that Openser 1.1 and
db_mode 3 are REQUIRED in order to support multiple OpenSER systems accessing a common
MySQL database?
-----Original Message-----
From: Bogdan-Andrei Iancu [mailto:bogdan@voice-system.ro]
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 9:06 AM
To: Douglas Garstang
Cc: users(a)openser.org
Subject: Re: [Users] OpenSER MySQL Updates - Weird
Doug,
first of all, if you do not get a reply, do not repost ...no
one owes
replies to no body.
second...you got a reply..check carefully your emails.
bogdan
Douglas Garstang wrote:
Posted this yesterday. Didn't get a reply...
>Bogdan, thanks for the reply. I'm don't quite understand. I'm
>using db_mode 1, which the docs say writes all updates
>immediately to the database. A 'openserctl ul show' still
>shows cached entries though. Why? Is db_mode 1 supposed to
>cache at all? Which db_mode should I use so that I can have
>two or more OpenSER systems safely accessing the same database?
>
>Douglas.
>
>
28 Mar
28 Mar
2:40 p.m.
New subject: [Users] OpenSER MySQL Updates - Weird
Douglas,
Below is Bogdan's previous response to you:
<snip>
all db_mods from 0 to 2 use mem cache - the difference is when the DB is
updated with changes from cache. in mod 1 the changes from cache are
immediately written into DB.
the only non-cache db mod is 3, but this is available only in the devel
branch - read carefully the docs to understand the implications of this mod.
</snip>
As you can see, he didn't say that db mode 3 is required in your
situation. He was just briefly explaining the option and steering you
to the docs for more detailed information. I don't think that the devel
CVS branch is called OpenSER 1.1 but that's just a matter of semantics.
Anyway, getting back to your question:
If you google "multiple SER site:mail.iptel.org" you will find a
discussion of your problem along with suggested solutions.
A thread along these lines is, for example:
http://mail.iptel.org/pipermail/serusers/2003-November/003847.html
<from the above thread>
We have multiple SER servers all accesing the same database. We had to
introduce a new "location" table for each instance of SER. So for example
we have a main SER server which acceses the standard "location" table and we
have another SER as RTPProxy which uses a table called "location_proxy". We
just created that custom table using the structure of the regular "location"
table.
Has been working great for us for several months.
</from the above thread>
I have found that searching mail.iptel.org will often provide answers to
many questions. Note that the above example thread was posted back in 2003.
Regards,
Norm
Douglas Garstang wrote:
So, are you saying, based on the email you sent (which
I just found) that Openser 1.1 and db_mode 3 are REQUIRED in order to support multiple
OpenSER systems accessing a common MySQL database?
-----Original Message-----
From: Bogdan-Andrei Iancu [mailto:bogdan@voice-system.ro]
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 9:06 AM
To: Douglas Garstang
Cc: users(a)openser.org
Subject: Re: [Users] OpenSER MySQL Updates - Weird
Doug,
first of all, if you do not get a reply, do not repost ...no
one owes
replies to no body.
second...you got a reply..check carefully your emails.
bogdan
Douglas Garstang wrote:
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)openser.org
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Posted this yesterday. Didn't get a reply...
> Bogdan, thanks for the reply. I'm don't quite understand. I'm
> using db_mode 1, which the docs say writes all updates
> immediately to the database. A 'openserctl ul show' still
> shows cached entries though. Why? Is db_mode 1 supposed to
> cache at all? Which db_mode should I use so that I can have
> two or more OpenSER systems safely accessing the same database?
>
> Douglas.
>
>
>
2:53 p.m.
New subject: [Users] OpenSER MySQL Updates - Weird
I remember that.
<2cents>
Ultimately we introduced some database
slicing...instead of separate tables we used a single
table but created a view that restricted what each
ser process saw. This had the same effect as multiple
tables but allowed us use the root table to scan all
registrations (externally).
Anyway, I've migrated away from that, I like using
DNS way more than a location table :-)
I think that even if you can get multiple processes
to work on the same database you will have problems with
scaling...and you have a single point of failure. I know our
postgres database runs out of steam near 200 queries per second.
</2cents>
On 3/28/06, Norman Brandinger <norm(a)goes.com> wrote:
Douglas,
Below is Bogdan's previous response to you:
<snip>
all db_mods from 0 to 2 use mem cache - the difference is when the DB is
updated with changes from cache. in mod 1 the changes from cache are
immediately written into DB.
the only non-cache db mod is 3, but this is available only in the devel
branch - read carefully the docs to understand the implications of this mod.
</snip>
As you can see, he didn't say that db mode 3 is required in your
situation. He was just briefly explaining the option and steering you
to the docs for more detailed information. I don't think that the devel
CVS branch is called OpenSER 1.1 but that's just a matter of semantics.
Anyway, getting back to your question:
If you google "multiple SER site:mail.iptel.org" you will find a
discussion of your problem along with suggested solutions.
A thread along these lines is, for example:
http://mail.iptel.org/pipermail/serusers/2003-November/003847.html
<from the above thread>
We have multiple SER servers all accesing the same database. We had to
introduce a new "location" table for each instance of SER. So for example
we have a main SER server which acceses the standard "location" table and we
have another SER as RTPProxy which uses a table called "location_proxy". We
just created that custom table using the structure of the regular "location"
table.
Has been working great for us for several months.
</from the above thread>
I have found that searching mail.iptel.org will often provide answers to
many questions. Note that the above example thread was posted back in 2003.
Regards,
Norm
Douglas Garstang wrote:
--
Greg Fausak
greg(a)thursday.com
So, are you saying, based on the email you sent
(which I just found) that Openser 1.1 and db_mode 3 are REQUIRED in order to support
multiple OpenSER systems accessing a common MySQL database?
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)openser.org
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
-----Original Message-----
From: Bogdan-Andrei Iancu [mailto:bogdan@voice-system.ro]
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 9:06 AM
To: Douglas Garstang
Cc: users(a)openser.org
Subject: Re: [Users] OpenSER MySQL Updates - Weird
Doug,
first of all, if you do not get a reply, do not repost ...no
one owes
replies to no body.
second...you got a reply..check carefully your emails.
bogdan
Douglas Garstang wrote:
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)openser.org
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Posted this yesterday. Didn't get a reply...
> Bogdan, thanks for the reply. I'm don't quite understand. I'm
> using db_mode 1, which the docs say writes all updates
> immediately to the database. A 'openserctl ul show' still
> shows cached entries though. Why? Is db_mode 1 supposed to
> cache at all? Which db_mode should I use so that I can have
> two or more OpenSER systems safely accessing the same database?
>
> Douglas.
>
>
>
6850
days inactive
6850
days old
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Douglas Garstang -
Greg Fausak -
Norman Brandinger