12 Aug
2004
12 Aug
'04
7:52 a.m.
Mike,
In a high load situation I would not use a trigger. From experience you can encounter big
billing delays when you start using complex billing. Most DB's see the trigger as part
of your insert action and will not reply to the application that performed the INSERT
until the trigger has finished. This means your SER may have to wait for a few seconds to
know if the insert was OK (serious performance impact).
Now may say a few seconds why ?
just take into account you have a number port database with 2M records which you need to
scan to see if the number is ported. Can take a second very easily :(
I would advise using a JOB on your SQL server (supported by Oracle & MSSQL, Postgres
does not support it I think) which runs every minute. You still have the load on the
server but SER will not be delayed by TRIGGER.
Arne.
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org]On
Behalf Of Michael Przybylski
Sent: donderdag 12 augustus 2004 8:32
To: Michael Shuler
Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Why Transactional Accounting?
SER seems to support postgresql as an accounting backend, and postgresql
support "triggers."
This is a synthesis of only a cursory look at the SER source tree and
postgresql docs on triggers, but it looks like you can do the following:
1.) Set up SER to use postgresql as it's accounting backend.
2.) Create an extra table with the fields you would like to see in your
"real world records."
3.) Create trigger to corelate INVITES and BYEs and insert a row into your
"real world records" table every time it notices that a BYE has been
inserted into the transactional accounting table.
This is still extra CPU load that will hurt your scalability but it's
fairly elegant and an experienced PostgreSQL user/admin should be able to
crate it up pretty quickly.
Finally, I'd bet that a 2-way or 4-way opteron-based database server would
hold up to a pretty substantial call volume, even while running that
trigger.
Best regards,
Mike Przybylski
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Michael Shuler wrote:
At first it seemed like a really good idea then the
more I looked at real
world records I realized that to generate a bill for a customer would
require quite bit of work on MySQL's part to match up the INVITE's and the
BYE's and then calc the difference in the times. This causes a bit of a
problem for me because I like my customers to be able to see their CDR
records live. Which really isn't much unless you look at it from a 100,000
user perspective. I would either have to beat up my SQL server every time
they look at their records (or my customer service employees look at them or
even when the biller generates their bill) or run a cron job that runs every
so often to convert the data to a single record with a start time and a
duration and store it in another table. The cron idea isn't too efficient
because of wasting disk space and rewriting a lot of the same data twice.
This then leads me to ask why the SER acc module wasn't setup to generate an
initial start record identical to the INVITE message that it already does
that would be marked as "in progress"? Then when a BYE is received with a
matching Call-ID you find the original INVITE record, change its status to
"done" and populate a duration field. Any ideas why this can't be done
without affecting SER's scalability? :)
Thanks!
----------------------------------------
Michael Shuler, C.E.O.
BitWise Systems, Inc.
682 High Point Lane
East Peoria, IL 61611
Office: (217) 585-0357
Cell: (309) 657-6365
Fax: (309) 213-3500
E-Mail: mike(a)bwsys.net
Customer Service: (877) 976-0711
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
12 Aug
12 Aug
2:27 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Why Transactional Accounting?
Hi Guys,
<soapbox>
OK, I have to say that I am opinionated about databases. I've been
working with databases since before Oracle (I actually worked at
Britton Lee in Los Gatos California, they manufactured a database
machine).
Anyway...
Postgres is a serious database engine. When we first starting using
SER I wrote the postgres backend because it had many characteristics
that I prefer over the then available mysql engine. I have written
large
scale database applications, and I have had the opportunity to
port applications that were melting on mysql to postgres.
Most databases are administration heavy, postgres is no exception.
They must be indexed, profiled, analyzed and vacuumed to maintain good
performance.
For this application, we use:
syslog pushing accounting information to various capturing syslogd's.
A sweeper that reaps syslog information and populates the postgres
database.
The customer's call information is live and viewable up to the 6 second
mark.
Call INVITE/BYE matcher only has to deal with 'current call' records,
that is, those
that haven't been matched. Now, granted, we haven't had a real big
load (yet), so
I don't know if it will scale. But, I believe it will.
We don't use triggers either. I think they would work fine but
they make ad-hoc database changes a bit harder.
</soapbox>
---greg
On Aug 12, 2004, at 2:52 AM, Arne Scheffer wrote:
Mike,
In a high load situation I would not use a trigger. From experience
you can encounter big billing delays when you start using complex
billing. Most DB's see the trigger as part of your insert action and
will not reply to the application that performed the INSERT until the
trigger has finished. This means your SER may have to wait for a few
seconds to know if the insert was OK (serious performance impact).
Now may say a few seconds why ?
just take into account you have a number port database with 2M records
which you need to scan to see if the number is ported. Can take a
second very easily :(
I would advise using a JOB on your SQL server (supported by Oracle &
MSSQL, Postgres does not support it I think) which runs every minute.
You still have the load on the server but SER will not be delayed by
TRIGGER.
Arne.
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org]On
Behalf Of Michael Przybylski
Sent: donderdag 12 augustus 2004 8:32
To: Michael Shuler
Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Why Transactional Accounting?
SER seems to support postgresql as an accounting backend, and
postgresql
support "triggers."
This is a synthesis of only a cursory look at the SER source tree and
postgresql docs on triggers, but it looks like you can do the
following:
1.) Set up SER to use postgresql as it's accounting backend.
2.) Create an extra table with the fields you would like to see in your
"real world records."
3.) Create trigger to corelate INVITES and BYEs and insert a row into
your
"real world records" table every time it notices that a BYE has been
inserted into the transactional accounting table.
This is still extra CPU load that will hurt your scalability but it's
fairly elegant and an experienced PostgreSQL user/admin should be able
to
crate it up pretty quickly.
Finally, I'd bet that a 2-way or 4-way opteron-based database server
would
hold up to a pretty substantial call volume, even while running that
trigger.
Best regards,
Mike Przybylski
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Michael Shuler wrote:
Greg Fausak
www.AddaBrand.com
(US) 469-546-1265
At first it seemed like a really good idea then
the more I looked at
real
world records I realized that to generate a bill for a customer would
require quite bit of work on MySQL's part to match up the INVITE's
and the
BYE's and then calc the difference in the times. This causes a bit
of a
problem for me because I like my customers to be able to see their CDR
records live. Which really isn't much unless you look at it from a
100,000
user perspective. I would either have to beat up my SQL server every
time
they look at their records (or my customer service employees look at
them or
even when the biller generates their bill) or run a cron job that
runs every
so often to convert the data to a single record with a start time and
a
duration and store it in another table. The cron idea isn't too
efficient
because of wasting disk space and rewriting a lot of the same data
twice.
This then leads me to ask why the SER acc module wasn't setup to
generate an
initial start record identical to the INVITE message that it already
does
that would be marked as "in progress"? Then when a BYE is received
with a
matching Call-ID you find the original INVITE record, change its
status to
"done" and populate a duration field. Any ideas why this can't be
done
without affecting SER's scalability? :)
Thanks!
----------------------------------------
Michael Shuler, C.E.O.
BitWise Systems, Inc.
682 High Point Lane
East Peoria, IL 61611
Office: (217) 585-0357
Cell: (309) 657-6365
Fax: (309) 213-3500
E-Mail: mike(a)bwsys.net
Customer Service: (877) 976-0711
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
13 Aug
13 Aug
1:59 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] Why Transactional Accounting?
Hi,
This is what I am thinking.
I will have two tables in database. One holds
inprogress calls and the other holds finished calls.
I would write a module that inserts a new record when
an INVITE is sent out. Update the same
record(timestamps) when 200 OK, ACK are received. When
BYE or any 4xx is received, update the new timestamp (
another field) and move this record to the new table.
which will be one INSERT and one delete. Always when I
update, I update only the inprogress calls table.
Then what would be the impact on the performance?
At any point of time, I dont see more than 500 calls
in progress in our ser. Currently we see about 40-50
simultaneous calls happening. I execute an update on
40-50 records or at the max 500 records. I execute an
INSERT into a table that has lot of records.
This I think is could serve our purpose. Any
suggestions on this?
Greg, which database do you suggest would be best to
use in this case? mysql or postgre?
regards
Rao
--- Greg Fausak <greg(a)addabrand.com> wrote:
Hi Guys,
<soapbox>
OK, I have to say that I am opinionated about
databases. I've been
working with databases since before Oracle (I
actually worked at
Britton Lee in Los Gatos California, they
manufactured a database
machine).
Anyway...
Postgres is a serious database engine. When we
first starting using
SER I wrote the postgres backend because it had many
characteristics
that I prefer over the then available mysql engine.
I have written
large
scale database applications, and I have had the
opportunity to
port applications that were melting on mysql to
postgres.
Most databases are administration heavy, postgres is
no exception.
They must be indexed, profiled, analyzed and
vacuumed to maintain good
performance.
For this application, we use:
syslog pushing accounting information to various
capturing syslogd's.
A sweeper that reaps syslog information and
populates the postgres
database.
The customer's call information is live and viewable
up to the 6 second
mark.
Call INVITE/BYE matcher only has to deal with
'current call' records,
that is, those
that haven't been matched. Now, granted, we haven't
had a real big
load (yet), so
I don't know if it will scale. But, I believe it
will.
We don't use triggers either. I think they would
work fine but
they make ad-hoc database changes a bit harder.
</soapbox>
---greg
On Aug 12, 2004, at 2:52 AM, Arne Scheffer wrote:
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Mike,
In a high load situation I would not use a
trigger. From experience
you can encounter big billing delays when you
start using complex
billing. Most DB's see the trigger as part of
your
insert action and
will not reply to the application that performed
the INSERT until the
trigger has finished. This means your SER may
have
to wait for a few
seconds to know if the insert was OK (serious
performance impact).
Now may say a few seconds why ?
just take into account you have a number port
database with 2M records
which you need to scan to see if the number is
ported. Can take a
second very easily :(
I would advise using a JOB on your SQL server
(supported by Oracle &
MSSQL, Postgres does not support it I think)
which
runs every minute.
You still have the load on the server but SER
will
not be delayed by
TRIGGER.
Arne.
-----Original Message-----
From: serusers-bounces(a)lists.iptel.org
[mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org]On
Behalf Of Michael Przybylski
Sent: donderdag 12 augustus 2004 8:32
To: Michael Shuler
Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Why Transactional
Accounting?
SER seems to support postgresql as an accounting
backend, and
postgresql
support "triggers."
This is a synthesis of only a cursory look at the
SER source tree and
postgresql docs on triggers, but it looks like
you
can do the
following:
1.) Set up SER to use postgresql as it's
accounting backend.
2.) Create an extra table with the fields you
would like to see in your
"real world records."
3.) Create trigger to corelate INVITES and BYEs
and insert a row into
your
"real world records" table every time it notices
that a BYE has been
inserted into the transactional accounting
table.
This is still extra CPU load that will hurt your
scalability but it's
fairly elegant and an experienced PostgreSQL
user/admin should be able
to
crate it up pretty quickly.
Finally, I'd bet that a 2-way or 4-way
opteron-based database server
would
hold up to a pretty substantial call volume, even
while running that
trigger.
Best regards,
Mike Przybylski
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Michael Shuler wrote:
> At first it seemed like a really good idea then
the more I looked at
> real
> world records I realized that to generate a bill
for a customer would
> require quite bit of work on MySQL's part
to
match up the INVITE's
> and the
> BYE's and then calc the difference in the times.
This causes a bit
> of a
> problem for me because I like my customers to be
able to see their CDR
> records live. Which really isn't much
unless you
look at it from a
> 100,000
> user perspective. I would either have to beat up
my SQL server every
> time
> they look at their records (or my customer
service employees look at
> them or
> even when the biller generates their bill) or run
a cron job that
> runs every
> so often to convert the data to a single record
with a start time and
> a
> duration and store it in another table. The cron
idea isn't too
> efficient
> because of wasting disk space and rewriting a lot
of the same data
> twice.
>
> This then leads me to ask why the SER acc module
wasn't setup to
> generate an
> initial start record identical to the INVITE
message that it already
> does
> that would be marked as "in progress"? Then when
a BYE is received
> with a
> matching Call-ID you find the original INVITE
record, change its
> status to
> "done" and populate a duration field. Any ideas
why this can't
be
> done
> without affecting SER's scalability? :)
>
> Thanks!
7277
days inactive
7278
days old
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Arne Scheffer -
Greg Fausak -
Ranga