On 08/03/2017 08:01, Juha Heinanen wrote:
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
>
>>> So, for example, if k2 is a presence server and k1 is forwarding
>>> subscribes/publish requests to it, only one process at k2 would be
>>> processing them since the tcp connection between k1 and k2 is reused?
>>>
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
> > So, for example, if k2 is a presence server and k1 is forwarding
> > subscribes/publish requests to it, only one process at k2 would be
> > processing them since the tcp connection between k1 and k2 is reused?
> >
> Those were the observations described by the
On 08/03/2017 01:36, Juha Heinanen wrote:
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
>
>> So, I expect kamailio wil reuse the connection between kamailio1 and
>> kamailio2. The tcp manager process selects the least loaded tcp worker
>> when a new connection is accepted, and the worker start consuming the
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
> So, I expect kamailio wil reuse the connection between kamailio1 and
> kamailio2. The tcp manager process selects the least loaded tcp worker
> when a new connection is accepted, and the worker start consuming the
> packets on it until there is nothing to be read
Hello,
On 07/03/2017 08:50, Surendra Pullaiah wrote:
> Dear Daniel,
>
>
> A small concern in kamailio, existing TCP stack is not doing load
> distribution among children for SIP messages. For example UE-->kamailio1 (TCP
> listen (4 children)) ->kamailio2 (TCP Listen 4 children)
>
>
Dear Daniel,
A small concern in kamailio, existing TCP stack is not doing load
distribution among children for SIP messages. For example UE-->kamailio1 (TCP
listen (4 children)) ->kamailio2 (TCP Listen 4 children)
As per stack if UE opens a connection with kamailio1 based o
