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 [email protected] wrote: > Hello, > > An mar., févr 02, 2010, [email protected] schrieb: > >> An mer., déc 23, 2009, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu schrieb: >> >>> [email protected] 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 > [email protected] > http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users > > -- Bogdan-Andrei Iancu www.voice-system.ro _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
