[OpenSIPS-Users] Memory Leak - RTP Engine?

Tue Dec 3 11:59:23 EST 2019

Hi All,

I'm working through this memory issue and have some additional data. The
server crashed this afternoon due to memory exhaustion on a UDP listener
process, as far as I know at this time. Note that the processes all have
4GB assigned so this is a gradual and constant growth issue.

At this point I have my suspicions that it could be related to the
RTPEngine module - the first memory allocation error messages are all
related to what I believe the be RTCP session reports coming in from the
RTP engine servers. These came through about every second for an hour
before OpenSIPs finally gave up the ghost and restarted.

Is this normal behaviour? We have only recently moved to RTPEngine from
RTPProxy so I am new to this software. Does anyone know if it is possible
to prevent RTPEngine from sending this data to OpenSIPs - its not something
that we require and I'd like to check if this is at all related to the
memory growth. Any other ideas would also be appreciated!

Many thanks,

Callum

2019-12-03T11:48:14.653225+00:00 TH-P-SIPREG-1 opensips[2521]:
ERROR:core:fm_malloc: not enough free pkg memory (214628248 bytes left,
need 536), please increase the "-M" command line parameter!
2019-12-03T11:48:14.653851+00:00 TH-P-SIPREG-1 opensips[2521]:
INFO:core:fm_malloc: attempting defragmentation...
2019-12-03T11:48:15.651495+00:00 TH-P-SIPREG-1 opensips[2521]:
INFO:core:fm_malloc: unable to alloc a big enough fragment!
2019-12-03T11:48:15.652218+00:00 TH-P-SIPREG-1 opensips[2521]:
ERROR:rtpengine:rtpe_function_call: failed to decode bencoded reply from
proxy: d7:createdi1575373650e10:created_usi505483e11:last
signali1575373670e4:SSRCd10:3831331386d11:average
MOSd3:MOSi44e15:round-trip timei6754e6:jitteri0e11:packet
lossi0e7:samplesi9ee10:lowest MOSd3:MOSi44e15:round-trip
timei6175e6:jitteri0e11:packet lossi0e11:reported ati1575373656ee11:highest
MOSd3:MOSi44e15:round-trip timei6175e6:jitteri0e11:packet
lossi0e11:reported ati1575373656ee15:MOS
progressiond8:intervali3e7:entriesld3:MOSi44e15:round-trip
timei6175e6:jitteri0e11:packet lossi0e11:reported
ati1575373656eed3:MOSi44e15:round-trip timei6307e6:jitteri0e11:packet
lossi0e11:reported ati1575373660eed3:MOSi44e15:round-trip
timei6884e6:jitteri0e11:packet lossi0e11:reported
ati1575373664eed3:MOSi44e15:round-trip timei7016e6:jitteri0e11:packet
lossi0e11:reported ati1575373668eed3:MOSi44e15:round-trip
timei6368e6:jitteri0e11:packet lossi0e11:reported
ati1575373674eed3:MOSi44e15:round-trip timei6929e6:jitteri0e11:packet
lossi0e11:reported ati1575373679eed3:MOSi44e15:round-trip
timei6884e6:jitteri0e11:packet lossi0e11:reported
ati1575373684eed3:MOSi44e15:round-trip timei7241e6:jitteri0e11:packet
lossi0e11:reported ati1575373689eed3:MOSi44e15:round-trip
timei6988e6:jitteri0e11:packet lossi0e11:reported
ati1575373694eeeee10:1028099660d11:average MOSd3:MOSi43e15:round-trip
timei29936e6:jitteri0e11:packet lossi0e7:samplesi7ee10:lowest
MOSd3:MOSi43e15:round-trip timei29515e6:jitteri0e11:packet
lossi0e11:reported ati1575373661ee11:highest MOSd3:MOSi43e15:round-trip
timei29515e6:jitteri0e11:packet lossi0e11:reported ati1575373661ee15:MOS
progressiond8:intervali3e7:entriesld3:MOSi43e15:round-trip
timei29515e6:jitteri0e11:packet lossi0e11:reported
ati1575373661eed3:MOSi43e15:round-trip timei29817e6:jitteri0e11:packet
lossi0e11:reported ati1575373666eed3:MOSi43e15:round-trip
timei30695e6:jitteri0e11:packet lossi0e11:reported
ati1575373671eed3:MOSi43e15:round-trip timei29541e6:jitteri0e11:packet
lossi0e11:reported ati1575373676eed3:MOSi43e15:round-trip
timei30073e6:jitteri0e11:packet lossi0e11:reported
ati1575373681eed3:MOSi43e15:round-trip timei29526e6:jitteri0e11:packet
lossi0e11:reported ati1575373686eed3:MOSi43e15:round-trip
timei30391e6:jitteri0e11:packet lossi0e11:reported
ati1575373691eeeeee4:tagsd10:3044367218d3:tag10:30443672187:createdi1575373650e16:in
dialogue
with13:N8Nr5mDpcNt1a6:mediasld5:indexi1e4:type5:audio8:protocol7:RTP/AVP7:streamsld10:local
porti32494e8:endpointd6:family4:IPv47:address13:51.51.51.514:porti47360ee19:advertised
endpointd6:family4:IPv47:address9:10.0.0.154:porti12672ee11:last
packeti1575373694e5:flagsl3:RTP6:filled9:confirmed10:kernelizede4:SSRCi1028099660e5:statsd7:packetsi2045e5:bytesi351740e6:errorsi0eeed10:local
porti32495e8:endpointd6:family4:IPv47:address13:51.51.51.514:porti47361ee19:advertised
endpointd6:family4:IPv47:address9:10.0.0.154:porti12673ee11:last
packeti1575373691e5:flagsl4:RTCP6:filled9:confirmed10:kernelized17:no
kernel
supporte4:SSRCi1028099660e5:statsd7:packetsi8e5:bytesi1240e6:errorsi0eeee5:flagsl11:initialized4:send4:recveeee13:N8Nr5mDpcNt1ad3:tag13:N8Nr5mDpcNt1a7:createdi1575373650e16:in
dialogue
with10:30443672186:mediasld5:indexi1e4:type5:audio8:protocol7:RTP/AVP7:streamsld10:local
porti34226e8:endpointd6:family4:IPv47:address15:192.168.163.2224:porti11484ee19:advertised
endpointd6:family4:IPv47:address15:192.168.163.2224:porti11484ee11:last
packeti1575373694e5:flagsl3:RTP6:filled9:confirmed10:kernelizede4:SSRCi3831331386e5:statsd7:packetsi2018e5:bytesi347096e6:errorsi0eeed10:local
porti34227e8:endpointd6:family4:IPv47:address15:192.168.163.2224:porti11485ee19:advertised
endpointd6:family4:IPv47:address15:192.168.163.2224:porti11485ee11:last
packeti1575373694e5:flagsl4:RTCP6:filled9:confirmed10:kernelized17:no
kernel
supporte4:SSRCi3831331386e5:statsd7:packetsi9e5:bytesi1008e6:errorsi0eeee5:flagsl11:initialized4:send4:recv15:ICE
controllingeeeee6:totalsd3:RTPd7:packetsi4063e5:bytesi698836e6:errorsi0ee4:RTCPd7:packetsi17e5:bytesi2248e6:errorsi0eee6:result2:oke

On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 22:51, Callum Guy <callum.guy at x-on.co.uk> wrote:

> Hi Ben,
>
> Thank you for your reply and insight here, very helpful to know you're
> running a drastically different setting for the package memory.
>
> I presumed if it preallocated that I would have seen some issues during
> testing, hence I've ended up with figures that were intended to provide 75%
> of the system memory to the application.
>
> Memory usage had been creeping up all day at the time of writing however
> migrations to this platform had been on hold since the initial capture of
> memory usage although call traffic would have been relatively even during
> daytime hours where the increase continued. On that basis I'm still
> concerned that there is an issue with my config causing this growth however
> I've now increased available memory and restarted so I should have ample
> time to investigate this week, I'll report back any findings for the
> community benefit. I will give some serious thought to lowering the package
> allocation value once I've got to grips with the situation.
>
> Usefully this implementation shares a lot of common components to another
> variant which acts as a pure proxy and does not deal with registrations
> where I'm not seeing this issue so that will narrow down the search area
> somewhat.
>
> Thanks again for your time,
>
> Callum
>
> On Sat, 30 Nov 2019, 15:46 Ben Newlin, <Ben.Newlin at genesys.com> wrote:
>
>> Callum,
>>
>>
>>
>> It’s my understanding that OpenSIPS does not release memory back to the
>> OS, but it also pre-allocates all memory at startup into its private pool
>> and then allocates from that internally. Normally shared memory should be
>> significantly higher than package memory. For reference, on our system we
>> run with “-m 1024 -M 64” and that is sufficient for us to process very high
>> traffic volume. We don’t do registration though, so that may affect the
>> sizes you need.
>>
>>
>>
>> You are setting your package memory size to 4G, so that will allocate 4G
>> memory for every package (process) that loads and then 2G for shared
>> memory. That will use up all the memory on your machine extremely quickly
>> for sure. The statistics you provided seem like the memory increase is
>> consistent with higher traffic levels on the second reading. You can see in
>> your case that all of your “pkmem” processes have an extremely high amount
>> of free memory (~3GB!). But that memory is still allocated from the OS, so
>> you are instructing OpenSIPS to allocate much more than your system memory
>> right at startup.
>>
>>
>>
>> Your shared memory also has just under 2GB free, so you have a lot of
>> headroom there too. Since OpenSIPS pre-allocates, the amount of memory
>> being used by the system overall should be fairly steady; if it is
>> continuously increasing that implies a leak somewhere. IIRC there are a few
>> processes/modules/commands in OpenSIPS or libraries it uses that do
>> allocate memory directly from the system and not from OpenSIPS’ pool. You
>> may need to investigate some of those to find out where your memory is
>> going, or look at other processes/daemons you have running that could be
>> using that memory.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ben Newlin
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Users <users-bounces at lists.opensips.org> on behalf of Callum Guy
>> <callum.guy at x-on.co.uk>
>> *Reply-To: *OpenSIPS users mailling list <users at lists.opensips.org>
>> *Date: *Friday, November 29, 2019 at 10:57 AM
>> *To: *OpenSIPS users mailling list <users at lists.opensips.org>
>> *Subject: *[OpenSIPS-Users] Memory Leak - runtime flags?
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>>
>>
>> I have recently deployed a new registrar and have been seeing a gradual
>> increase in the memory footprint - enough that I'm having to expand the RAM
>> (its virtualised) to ensure it doesn't run out.
>>
>>
>>
>> You can see a diff of the statistics collected last night at 11pm and
>> today at 3pm here:
>> https://gist.github.com/spacetourist/2103503674e134bd598c7f1e3a82674c/revisions
>>
>>
>>
>> Processes 5-9 are my UDP SIP receiver threads (autoscaled down from an
>> initial footprint of 20 threads).
>>
>>
>>
>> Using 3.0.1 on CentOS 7 8GB RAM (soon to be 32GB!). Currently OpenSIPs is
>> using all the RAM (minus OS usage) and 2GB of swap. Trying to use dialog
>> and dr clustering if that is significant.  Alos have NAT pings configured
>> for all registrations (4000 at time of writing).
>>
>>
>>
>> I am using runtime configuration flags of "*-m 2048 -M 4096*" and am
>> concerned that these were (way) too high, I think I've misinterpreted their
>> meaning during initial setup. Is this a ridiculous setting for my
>> environment? Is it just as simple as OpenSIPs being greedy with the memory
>> such that it doesn't bother to free anything while each process free space
>> remaining? Should my -M value * max number of processes fit into my RAM? I
>> guess with an 8GB system that would mean dropping this to "-M 256"?
>>
>>
>>
>> I've done some research into the issue however I haven't found anything
>> else that would be an obvious target so wondered if the community might
>> have some ideas of where I can begin investigations.
>>
>>
>>
>> Many thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>> Callum
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: Image removed by sender.]
>>
>>
>>
>> *0333 332 0000  |  www.x-on.co.uk <http://www.x-on.co.uk>  |  * *[image:
>> Image removed by sender.] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/x-on>  [image:
>> Image removed by sender.] <https://www.facebook.com/XonTel>  [image: Image
>> removed by sender.] <https://twitter.com/xonuk>*
>>
>> X-on is a trading name of Storacall Technology Ltd a limited company
>> registered in England and Wales.
>> Registered Office : Avaland House, 110 London Road, Apsley, Hemel
>> Hempstead, Herts, HP3 9SD. Company Registration No. 2578478.
>> The information in this e-mail is confidential and for use by the
>> addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify
>> X-on immediately on +44(0)333 332 0000 and delete the
>> message from your computer. If you are not a named addressee you must not
>> use, disclose, disseminate, distribute, copy, print or reply to this email.
>> Views or opinions expressed by an individual
>> within this email may not necessarily reflect the views of X-on or its
>> associated companies. Although X-on routinely screens for viruses,
>> addressees should scan this email and any attachments
>> for viruses. X-on makes no representation or warranty as to the absence
>> of viruses in this email or any attachments.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Users mailing list
>> Users at lists.opensips.org
>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>
>

-- 

*0333 332 0000  |  www.x-on.co.uk <http://www.x-on.co.uk>  |   ** 
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/x-on>   <https://www.facebook.com/XonTel> 
  <https://twitter.com/xonuk> *

X-on
is a trading name of Storacall 
Technology Ltd a limited company registered in
England and Wales.

Registered Office : Avaland House, 110 London Road, Apsley, Hemel 
Hempstead,
Herts, HP3 9SD. Company Registration No. 2578478.

The 
information in this e-mail is confidential and for use by the addressee(s)

only. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify X-on immediately 
on +44(0)333 332 0000 and delete the
message from your computer. If you are 
not a named addressee you must not use,
disclose, disseminate, distribute, 
copy, print or reply to this email. Views
or opinions expressed by an 
individual
within this email may not necessarily
reflect the views of X-on 
or its associated companies. Although X-on routinely
screens for viruses, 
addressees should scan this email and any attachments
for
viruses. X-on 
makes no representation or warranty as to the absence of viruses
in this 
email or any attachments.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20191203/70bf8673/attachment-0001.html>