[OpenSIPS-Users] opensipsctl fifo get_statistics - dialogs stats synced?

[solarmon]

Hi Vlad,

Thanks for the clarification.

OK - that makes sense.

I suppose this processed_dialogs value incrementing on the standby node is
a good indicator that clustering and dialog syncing is working as expected.

Thank you.

On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 13:30, Vlad Patrascu <vladp at opensips.org> wrote:

> The term "processed" should be read more generically in this context to
> include to act of receiving the replicated dialog and preparing it to
> become active at any time.
>
> Vlad Patrascu
> OpenSIPS Developerhttp://www.opensips-solutions.com
>
> On 10/21/2019 02:57 PM, solarmon wrote:
>
>  Hi Vlad,
>
> That was my understanding too, but why would processed_dialogs be
> incrementing on the standby (State=0) node?
>
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 12:51, Vlad Patrascu <vladp at opensips.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi solarmon,
>>
>> 'failed_dialogs' and 'processed_dialogs' represent the total number of
>> failed/processed dialogs on that OpenSIPS instance since startup. If one of
>> the nodes has been running and handling traffic for a longer time, it's
>> normal for the stats to be different. On the other hand 'active_dialogs'
>> should indeed be always in sync.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Vlad Patrascu
>> OpenSIPS Developerhttp://www.opensips-solutions.com
>>
>> On 10/21/2019 01:07 PM, solarmon wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Are dialogs stats meant to be totally synced between to openSIPS nodes in
>> a cluster - i.e. when using clusterer?
>>
>> I am monitoring/graphing the active_dialogs, failed_dialogs and
>> processed_dialogs for each node, using 'opensipsctl fifo get_statistics'
>> and they are not fully synced:
>>
>> *Node 1:*
>> active_dialogs = 6
>> failed_dialogs = 175
>> processed_dialogs = 605
>>
>> *Node 2:*
>> active_dialogs = 6
>> failed_dialogs = 0
>> processed_dialogs = 430
>>
>> It seems active_dialogs is synced, but failed_dialogs and
>> processed_dialogs are not.
>>
>> processed_dialogs figures are increasing on both, but they are not synced.
>>
>> Please can somebody explain and/or confirm this behaviour.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Users mailing listUsers at lists.opensips.orghttp://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 listUsers at lists.opensips.orghttp://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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20191021/76dd9a5b/attachment-0001.html>