Bogdan, My restriction on current 1.6 versions had to do with the fact I can only run up to Mediaproxy 2.3.8 due to python dependencies. Because of that, I couldn't run past 1.6 rev 6702 because of the ICE components requiring Mediaproxy 2.4.x.
By "should be okay" do you mean that I can now run a current 1.6 build on Mediaproxy 2.3.8? - Jeff On Jun 3, 2010, at 4:13 PM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > update from 1.6 SVN branch (rev 6943) and it should be ok. > > Regards, > Bogdan > > Jeff Pyle wrote: >> Bogdan, >> >> I think moving the warning to the debug level sounds like a fantastic idea. >> But I'll need a patch from you that I can run against 1.6 rev 6702 since >> that's the latest I can run! :) >> >> >> Thanks, >> Jeff >> >> >> On Jun 3, 2010, at 4:27 AM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote: >> >> >>> Jeff Pyle wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Bogdan, >>>> >>>> On Jun 2, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi Jeff, >>>>> >>>>> Jeff Pyle wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Hello, >>>>>> >>>>>> There was a post a little while back where the goal was to have two >>>>>> Opensips instances instances use one location table, but have each >>>>>> Opensips instance load only its own records. >>>>>> >>>>>> My application is slightly different. I'd like either Opensips instance >>>>>> to load any record from any Opensips instance and use it as its own. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> so like multiple opensips sharing the same location content (read / >>>>> write) via a single DB table ? For this use the db_mode 3 (DB_ONLY) to >>>>> avoid caching. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Yes, exactly. We've run db_mode=3 from day one with excellent success. >>>> Mysql cluster really shines here. :) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> It seems this is possible using two things: >>>>>> mhomed=1 >>>>>> force_send_socket(<local-IP>:5060); >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> not really - that is for opensips running on multiple IP addresses >>>>> (multiple listeners) in different networks. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> If I don't force_send_socket() won't I see the warning about the specific >>>> socket not being available, since it belongs to the other opensips >>>> instance? Or is there another to way to work around that? I'd prefer not >>>> to fill up my logs with warnings that would be normal in certain modes of >>>> operation. >>>> >>>> >>> That's an ugly and costly hack to get rid of that warning (harmless >>> anyhow) - better let's move the warning to debug level, what do you say ? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Bogdan >>> >>>> - Jeff >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Bogdan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Is it really this simple, or am I missing something? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> -- >>> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu >>> www.voice-system.ro >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Users mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
