[OpenSIPS-Users] number of opensips children

[Bogdan-Andrei Iancu]

Yes, I would say the WARNING level is a bit too much for this event - A 
simple INFO or DBG should be more than enough.

I will do the change on SVN.

Regards,
Bogdan

opensipslist at encambio.com wrote:
> Hello,
>
> An mar., févr 02, 2010, opensipslist at encambio.com schrieb:
>   
>> An mer., déc  23, 2009, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu schrieb:
>>     
>>> opensips at encambio.com wrote:
>>>       
>>>> An ven., déc 18, 2009, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu schrieb:
>>>> My gut feeling is that having four UDP listening processes and four
>>>> TCP listening processes is about right for us, because we only have
>>>> a handful of UACs participating infrequently (5 calls per day.)
>>>>   
>>>>         
>>> Actually that is more than needed - during some performance tests (only 
>>> simply call relaying) we managed to put 6K cps in a single process.
>>>
>>>       
>> I have eight TCP listeners configured and about sixteen UACs are
>> connected. I get a ton of these warnings whenever REGISTER or INVITE
>> messages come in:
>>
>>  Feb 02 18:17:22 name.host.tld <warning> opensips[02126]: WARNING:core:send2child: no free tcp receiver, connection passed to the leastbusy one (1)
>>  Feb 02 18:17:25 name.host.tld <warning> opensips[02126]: WARNING:core:send2child: no free tcp receiver, connection passed to the leastbusy one (1)
>>
>> Because you mentioned that you benchmarked 6K CPS with a single
>> process (was it TCP?), I'd like to know if you got as many warnings
>> as well. One question is:
>>
>>  What does 'free tcp receiver' mean? I assumed that listening
>>  TCP ports were free to accept as many connections as needed.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Is OpenSIPS expecting there to be at least one TCP listener process
>> which is not encumbered by the tcp_persistent_flag?
>>
>>     
> At risk of answering my own question and questioning my own answer,
> I'd like to suggest the following change:
>
> --- tcp_main.c.orig	2010-01-18 12:33:49.151095000 +0100
> +++ tcp_main.c	2010-02-02 20:07:15.263065567 +0100
> @@ -911,7 +911,7 @@
>  	tcp_children[idx].busy++;
>  	tcp_children[idx].n_reqs++;
>  	if (min_busy){
> -		LM_WARN("no free tcp receiver, connection passed to the least"
> +		LM_INFO("no free tcp receiver, connection passed to the least "
>  				"busy one (%d)\n", min_busy);
>  	}
>  	LM_DBG("to tcp child %d %d(%d), %p\n", idx, tcp_children[idx].proc_no,
>
> That would correct the defective english spelling 'leastbusy' as
> well as ridding the log of a properly running OpenSIPS server of
> false warnings. I'm assuming of course, that it's perfectly okay
> for TCP listener processes to keep a TCP connection open by using
> the tcp_persistent_flag and accept new SIP requests at the same
> time.
>
> Regards,
> Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at lists.opensips.org
> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>   


-- 
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
www.voice-system.ro