Hello,
On 03/11/15 19:21, Tristan Mahé wrote:
> Hello Daniel,
>
> Thanks for the new pointers, we will try it !
>
> For the record, we are now able to obtain an almost identical behavior
> ( still a loss of around 3% left )
Does this loss refer to performance?
> by tuning:
> - tls parameters.
>
Hello Daniel,
Thanks for the new pointers, we will try it !
For the record, we are now able to obtain an almost identical behavior (
still a loss of around 3% left ) by tuning:
- tls parameters.
- tcp parameters.
- optimizations of the config file in many ways.
Those optimisations/tuning were no
Hello,
On 21/10/15 00:37, Tristan Mahé wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Same config, same server, only kamailio version is different, starting
> the timer in the beginning of the config, and ending it just after the
> save("location").
looking more at it, some few hints.
Because the tls does quite a lot o
Hi Daniel,
Same config, same server, only kamailio version is different, starting
the timer in the beginning of the config, and ending it just after the
save("location").
Here is the result of 4.2.6:
INFO: benchmark [benchmark.c:351]: _bm_log_timer(): benchmark (timer
CHECKREG [0]): 2480 [ msgs/t
Hi Daniel,
I am doing that right now, thank you.
I will keep you posted as told on IRC.
Interesting part to keep everyone in the loop is when I activated the
"latency" logs options, I could see some messages regarding some core
functions taking more than 250ms to complete, or sometimes just a
ro
Hello,
can you use benchamrk module to see if any part of config got slower? if
executing of config from beginning of request_route to save() is more or
less the same, then setup of connection could be the issue.
Since 3.3., there was some work on usrloc module about gruu/outbound and
doing unreg
Hi Daniel,
It is on the exact same server, same system configuration, same
configuration trimmed down for fitting 3.3, packages installed from the
kamailio debian wheezy repository.
I can reproduce it just using sipp and a simple REGISTER loop.
Do you want me to run some specific tests ? provide
Hello,
is the same operating system and server, or are you using some other
machine for the new version? I can't remember right now any big change
in tcp/tls side, besides sni, which should not have any relevant impact
as described here.
Also, have you installed from git branch 4.2 or the tarball
Hi List,
I've been reaching a strange thing lately, trying to upgrade to kamailio
4.2.6 ( identical config ):
- 35% loss of performance on TLS connections ( Sipp REGISTER scenario,
easily reproduced ).
- more TCP workers needed to ease the TCP queues ( 32 workers on 3.3.7,
at least 64 are needed
