Re: [SR-Users] 4.4.5 Shared memory leak with t_suspend/t_continue

2017-04-25 Thread Julia Boudniatsky
Hello, I found my mistake! Transaction has been suspended in request route, and i try to_continue from onreply route. I change the scenario: - receive INVITE - reply and suspend - in onreply route (when received 180) send OPTIONS to localhost with $T(id_index):$T(id_label) - in request OPTIONS

Re: [SR-Users] 4.4.5 Shared memory leak with t_suspend/t_continue

2017-04-24 Thread Julia Boudniatsky
Hello Daniel, Thank you for reply. I haven't used event-route in this scenario. When i fork parallel (without suspend/continue), memory leak does not happen. On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote: > Hello, > > there seem to be quite a lot of avps -- are you using an ev

Re: [SR-Users] 4.4.5 Shared memory leak with t_suspend/t_continue

2017-04-24 Thread Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Hello, there seem to be quite a lot of avps -- are you using an event_route block with avp variables inside? Cheers, Daniel On 24.04.17 14:34, Julia Boudniatsky wrote: > Hello all, > > I need to fork an incoming call to the second destination, after > receiving 180 reply from the first destinat

[SR-Users] 4.4.5 Shared memory leak with t_suspend/t_continue

2017-04-24 Thread Julia Boudniatsky
Hello all, I need to fork an incoming call to the second destination, after receiving 180 reply from the first destination. I use kamailio version 4.4.5 It working fine, but with shared memory leak. The script part: $avp(00x)=$_s(sip:$var(00x)@$si:$sp;user=phone); if(!is_known_dlg()