Re: [SR-Users] event_route[core:msg-received] native vs kemi/lua

2019-11-12 Thread GG GG
ration > file in a usual production deployment. Have you tested with a more complex > set of actions/functions? > > Cheers, > Daniel > On 12.11.19 17:36, GG GG wrote: > > Hi! > > I just made a simple test performance between native script and kemi/lua > with the event_rou

[SR-Users] kemi framework design

2019-11-12 Thread GG GG
Hi, looking at the documentation and the code, I couldn't answer myself. - does kamailio use one lua interpreter per fork ? - about the safety, I just made a bad lua module in c, to force a segmentation fault in the module. I would expect kamailio to protect itself from the crash, but kamailio

Re: [SR-Users] event_route[core:msg-received] native vs kemi/lua

2019-11-12 Thread GG GG
id for kamailio 5.2, you > can look for more at: > > - https://www.kamailio.org/wiki/kemi/performance-tests/5.2.x > > Cheers, > Daniel > On 12.11.19 21:28, GG GG wrote: > > Hi Daniel, > > For lua example, it's just an error when writing my email... in my config > f

[SR-Users] event_route[core:msg-received] native vs kemi/lua

2019-11-12 Thread GG GG
Hi! I just made a simple test performance between native script and kemi/lua with the event_route[core:msg-received] callback. # lua script children=1 cpu.process=100% function ksr_core_received() exit; end # native script children=1 cpu.process=70% event_route[core:msg-received] { exit; }

Re: [SR-Users] event_route[core:msg-received] native vs kemi/lua

2019-11-12 Thread GG GG
similar results to yours. Maybe you can share full kamailio.cfg and lua > script for both cases. > > Cheers, > Daniel > On 12.11.19 22:11, GG GG wrote: > > Hello, > > I removed KSR.x.exit() and I got same results for cpu usage and Recv-Q. > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 3:56