Before LB was stateless and it was working fine. but we added new NIC on this and enabled mhomed=1 and it broke routing because coun't figure out right socket.. so i changed forward() to t_relay() and it works fine again.. now my question is does t_relay() impact performance... or any kind of issue? to having stateful LB ?
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 10:35 AM, SamyGo <govoi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Oh, I thought it was a typo, 200,000 CPS ! Well I'd say to not spend much > time thinking about t_relay() rather spend energy on designing an > architecture that can give you the flexibility and scalability options. > > For example: > A DNS SRV pointing to a layer of stateless dispatcher OpenSIPS. These > stateless OpenSIPS just don't care about any business logic just do a rough > load-balancing and "redirect" to the second layer OpenSIPS. > The second layer of OpenSIPS do the business logic and stay in call i.e use > t_relay() > > That is a simple example in which you can add as many OpenSIPS at both > layers to manage your 200K CPS. > > There could be way too many different ways of handling your 200K CPS load, > it all depends on your business logic, type of SIP requests and calls etc, > location of the end users/regions, methods to tweak your business logic i.e > use of caches and NoSQL DBs, and so much that only you may know at this > point. > > Please go through this link: http://www.opensips.org/About/PerformanceTests > to see results for different types of configurations. However, do keep in > mind that those results may be done on older versions of OpenSIPS and you > may want to stress test your setup separately to know what are your > capabilities. > > Regards, > Sammy > > > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Satish Patel <satish....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> We have 200,000 CPS and more in future. Just worried about t_relay() and >> its performance. Any idea? >> >> -- >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Mar 6, 2016, at 2:44 PM, SamyGo <govoi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I'd ask you to read difference between Load_balancer and Dispatcher >> module. Dispatcher module is not an accurate measure but it is the only >> option when it comes to load balancing REGISTER requests. >> >> Dispatcher is hence very light weight as compared to Load Balancer. For a >> 200 CPS calls Load Balancer or Dispatcehr won't be putting any bigger impact >> relative to the business logic itself. For example doing alot of DB queries, >> engaging various other modules etc these things really define how light or >> heavy your system is going to be. >> >> Regards, >> Sammy >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Satish Patel <satish....@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Any thought on it??? >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Satish Patel <satish....@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > We have dispatcher and we are using very simple code block like >>> > following >>> > >>> > if (method=="REGISTER" || method=="INVITE" ) { >>> > ds_select_dst("1", "2"); >>> > t_relay(); >>> > } >>> > >>> > Does t_relay will keep all transaction in memory? and what will be the >>> > performance issue? we have ~200k cps calls.. what will be the impact? >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Users mailing list >>> Users@lists.opensips.org >>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Users mailing list >> Users@lists.opensips.org >> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Users mailing list >> Users@lists.opensips.org >> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > Users@lists.opensips.org > http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users > _______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users