Re: [reSIProcate] dum - sip stack many-to-one relation question
I thought about it and actually started working on that. This was an ideal solution for me until...
I have designed an event model in which each callback generates a
specific event and pushes it to event queues. The events were holding
callback arguments (including the relevant DUM handles).
Application threads were supposed to process these events, and send DUM
commands to perform operations on the DUM handles. For instance, when
onOffer event has been processed, I intended to perform the
handle->provideAnswer() and handle->accept() within an execution
of a DUM command. I was doing so in order to prevent race conditions.
Then, I realized that at the time the command->execute occurs, the
DUM session state may not longer be relevant. Since I have no access to
these states (private), DUM might assert the command execute and I have
no control on that. Is there any solution for that ?
On 11/21/05, Jason Fischl <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I suggest that you create an async event for each of the Dum handlers
and pass this to your application through a message queue(Fifo). In
this way you can have multiple threads running in the application.
On 11/21/05, Meir Elberg <
elbergm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My application needs to interact with external processes using different
> protocols than SIP. This interaction might get stuck since it is a network
> request. It will stuck in the DUM callback methods. Therefore the functions
> better be designed asynchronously.
> You mentioned that most of the processing occurs either in the sip stack
> itself (SipStack) or in the application layer above DUM.
> But the application layer isn't separated from DUM, so actually it is part
> of the DUM portion of the CPU load.
> My goal is that the architecture of the B2B will not cause hanging of a
> phone call because of delays in processing of a previous phone call. in this
> architecture I cannot achieve this goal. What are you suggesting ?
>
> If Micky's suggestion is good, shouldn't the TransactionUser or the
> MessageFilterRule be changed as mentioned before?
>
> Meir.
>
> On 11/20/05, Jason Fischl <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Do you think that the cpu load in the dum portion of the code will be
> > significant and would benefit by having multiple threads? You will
> > likely find that most of the processing occurs either in the sip stack
> > itself (SipStack) or in the application layer above dum. But in any
> > event, you can do what you suggest. It might be less effort
> > programmatically to just have two B2BUA processes running on the same
> > host but drunning on different ports.
> >
> >
> > Jason
> >
> >
> > On 11/13/05, Meir Elberg < elbergm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > The motivation of doing so is not just for handling multiple users but
> also
> > > to have more than one thread that processing the calls in order to
> improve
> > > the B2B performance.
> > >
> > > The one stack requirement is needed in order to have one single
> listening
> > > point for the B2B.
> > >
> > > So, if it is possible, I still don't see how the incoming calls will be
> > > load shared between the different DUMs.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Elberg Meir.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11/10/05, Jason Fischl <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> wrote:
> > > > It absolutely can. But it isn't necessary to have multiple dum
> > > > instances (with one stack) to accomplish this. All that is needed is
> > > > to add multiple UserProfiles.
> > > >
> > > > On 11/10/05, Micky Kaufmann < micky@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > I still don't understand why DUM can't support multiple users in
> > > > > multiple instances with only one stack instance. (By making
> > > > > MessageFilterRule virtual)
> > > > > Are there problems preventing DUM from working like that?
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > [mailto:
> resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > On Behalf Of
> > > > > Jason Fischl
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 6:56 PM
> > > > > To: Meir Elberg
> > > > > Cc: resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Subject: Re: [reSIProcate] dum - sip stack many-to-one relation
> question
> > > > >
> > > > > The stack was definitely designed to have multiple TUs. However, dum
> > > > > was intended to support multiple users in a single instance. Running
> > > > > multiple dum TUs would be useful if you wanted to have different
> > > > > master profile characteristics and different handlers running for
> the
> > > > > different instances.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jason
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 11/10/05, Meir Elberg <
elbergm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > I also thought of this option, however the MessageFillterRule is
> not
> > > > > > abstract.
> > > > > > My concern is whether there are additional problems with this
> > > > > approach,
> > > > > > since according to Scott, it was not designed that way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 11/9/05, Jason Fischl < jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > Yes. You can attach multiple DialogUsageManagers to a single
> stack
> > > > > by
> > > > > > > using the message filter rules as Micky suggests. There is an
> > > > > example
> > > > > > > of this in repro although repro is not a second instance of dum
> it
> > > > > > > does demonstrate the idea of having two TUs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 11/9/05, Micky Kaufmann <
micky@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > DUM is a TransactionUser which means it has
> > > > > 'setMessageFilterRuleList'
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Wasn't the stack designed to forward messages to more than one
> > > > > > > > TransactionUser?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If it was designed that way is there still a reason for not
> > > > > overriding
> > > > > > > > 'setMessageFilterRuleList' to a few dum threads and still work
> > > > > with one
> > > > > > > > stack?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If both answer are optimistic why not have a HashTable of
> > > > > DumThreads and
> > > > > > > > update MessageFilterRule to filter messages according to
> > > > > > > > transactionId/DialogId hash value?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From:
> > > resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > > [mailto:
> > >
resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ]
> > > > > > On
> > > > > > > > Behalf Of Scott Godin
> > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 4:34 PM
> > > > > > > > To: Meir Elberg;
> > > resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [reSIProcate] dum - sip stack many-to-one
> relation
> > > > > > question
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You cannot attach many DUM objects to the same stack - it was
> not
> > > > > > designed
> > > > > > > > this way.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From:
> > > resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > >
> > > [mailto:
resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ]
> > > > > > On
> > > > > > > > Behalf Of Meir Elberg
> > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 4:09 AM
> > > > > > > > To: resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > > Subject: [reSIProcate] dum - sip stack many-to-one relation
> > > > > question
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm checking the option to attach many dum objects to one SIP
> > > > > stack.
> > > > > > > > Therefore, my first question is whether it is possible and if
> so,
> > > > > is it
> > > > > > > > recommended ?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The reason for doing so is that I wish to have one listening
> > > > > point,
> > > > > > i.e. by
> > > > > > > > adding one transport to a SIP stack and have many dum stacks
> > > > > (working as
> > > > > > > > UAS) using this sip stack, working in different threads in
> > > > > parallel.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Another question is when a SIP request is received to the SIP
> > > > > stack,
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > is the policy of distribution of this SIP request between the
> > > > > different
> > > > > > dum
> > > > > > > > objects attached to the SIP stack ?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > Elberg Meir
> > > > > > > > Ventego Networks
> > > > > > > >
> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > resiprocate-devel mailing list
> > > > > > > > resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > resiprocate-devel mailing list
> > > > > > resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > >
> > >
>
https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > resiprocate-devel mailing list
> > > > > resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > >
> > >
> https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> resiprocate-devel mailing list
> resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
>
>