[OpenSIPS-Users] dispatcher with t_relay performance

[Satish Patel]

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 <govoiper at 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.txt at 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 <govoiper at 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.txt at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Any thought on it???
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Satish Patel <satish.txt at 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 at lists.opensips.org
>>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Users mailing list
>> Users at lists.opensips.org
>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Users mailing list
>> Users at lists.opensips.org
>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at lists.opensips.org
> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>