Mike,<br><br>this is a really good start and we should collect these things so as to help the community to take the right choice. I would also suggest that what ever ground breaking issues we list we stay at the functional level (I do not think anyone is helped by using a description containing "allowing carrier grade platforms" and similar marketing phrases).<br><br>cheers<br><br><b><i>Mike Williams <mike@mikebwilliams.com></i></b> wrote:<blockquote class="replbq" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"> Kim,<br><br>Here are a few features of the top of my head that I can think of, both fetch <br>support and new a DB mode for usrloc. <br><br>The new db mode allows me to have two OpenSER servers load balanced using just <br>DNS SRV records and a mysql backend because any SIP transmission can go to <br>either server, and any server can fail without effecting anything else.<br><br>From the openser home
page:<br><br>Accounting optimization:<br><br>"2006-09-25 - Accounting module (acc) has been redesigned to be more flexible <br>and faster. <br><br> The module suffered major changes in the internals, but kept easy interface <br>to the configuration script. Lot of useless fields were removed from the <br>default list, they can be recorded on demand via extra accounting facility. <br><br> Many other optimization were introduced to enable modularity and faster <br>storage. Also, multi-leg accounting was enhanced to allow definition of as <br>many fields to be recorded as needed."<br><br>This describes some major memory tunings as well better support for huge <br>numbers of users:<br><br>Database fetch support 2006-07-14: <br> New introduced fetch support for database drivers enables management of huge <br>number of location entries (>120 000) with no need of OpenSER compilation <br>tunings. <br><br> Just few days after the last major release , new appealing feature was
<br>introduced in the development version. <br><br> Until now, when dealing with large number of subscribers, OpenSER/SER <br>required tunings and recompilation to resize the private memory large enough <br>so that all location records from database could be loaded. It was quite <br>annoying because this private memory was used only once, at startup, <br>afterwards most of it was not used at all by the SIP server, but it was <br>allocated and no other application could use it. <br><br> The new features loads chunks of records, the size of the chunk being <br>configurable and specific for the available private memory. The issue is now <br>solved in OpenSER, allowing straightforward deployments for carrier grade <br>platforms. This adds more value to the features introduced with the latest <br>release that enabled geographic distribution/failover and load balancing.<br><br>If I think of some other good stuff, I'll let you know.<br><br>Perhaps someone should put all these
comparisons into a wiki page so that we <br>can build an accurate picture of the advantages of each product.<br><br>Mike Williams<br><br>On Wednesday 08 November 2006 11:46, Kim Il wrote:<br>> Mike,<br>><br>> thanks a lot for your insight and the time you have taken to answer my<br>> question. I surely did not want to be unafir to anyone. I can not comment<br>> on the why the SER people are having only few releases compared to openser<br>> but I guess they have a good reason for that (I would guess it has<br>> something to do with thoroughness, testing ..., but I am here just<br>> guessing). For me and I guess many other people who depend on SER/openser<br>> for their business the more interesting question is what to use in the long<br>> term, which camp is the more innovative, is actually driving the change and<br>> is commiting itself to the really difficult tasks. Your statement that<br>> changes in SER have been in response to
openser is surely a very good<br>> starting point -and if this is true then there is no reason to shift back<br>> to SER. Do you, or maybe other people, have more examples -besides the web<br>> page- for this. This will really help me to better judge the situation.<br>> Looking at the release notes of both openser and SER I am still of the<br>> opinion that compared to the new features of SER, most of the features that<br>> were added to openser in the last year are of cosmetic nature (hardly any<br>> touches the tough issues of security, performance and reliability).<br>><br>> Yours sincerely<br>><br>> Kim<br>><br>> Mike Williams <mike@mikebwilliams.com> wrote: Kim,<br>><br>> I don't think that's really a fair assessment of the situation. It seems to<br>> me, and others much more knowledgeable please comment on this, that OpenSER<br>> was forked because SER was left to stagnate, and because of a large number<br>> of
feature patches that were just left to sit. The development cycles<br>> became too long, and it was unclear what the plan was.<br>><br>> Looking back on the progress of OpenSER, one can see that the team didn't<br>> just take those patches and merge them, and pretend that they have a new<br>> product, but have instead continually developed the code base. The always<br>> have a roadmap of the next release, and an estimated timeline for<br>> completing it. A lot of important features have been added.<br>><br>> Likewise, OpenSER seems to be using a different development philosophy. The<br>> OpenSER team releases .1 increment releases with new, useful, and stable<br>> features fairly often instead of waiting years. Since I've been using<br>> OpenSER, I've seen 3 releases. SER has put out 1 in that same time period,<br>> and honestly, I don't see the same amount of features really being added by<br>> SER. If anyone can compare the two
in their present STABLE forms, I would<br>> really like to hear about it.<br>><br>> In addition, it seems many of the changes to SER have been in response to<br>> OpenSER. Iptel/SER had the same website for years, with little information<br>> about what was actually happening. If you check the OpenSER website, they<br>> are always giving useful information and news to the users and community<br>> about going forward. Just in the last few months has Iptel/SER actually<br>> changed, no doubt partly due to how good OpenSER looked in comparison.<br>><br>> Mike Williams<br>><br>> On Wednesday 08 November 2006 04:06, Kim Il wrote:<br>> > thanks Rao for bringing this up. Actually our company has moved to<br>> > openser around 6 months ago after reading the rumor spread around on the<br>> > openser lists that SER is no longer being maintained. Looking now at the<br>> > new SER I must confess that we are more than
impressed about the new<br>> > features and substantial changes to SER. It seems that, unlike openser,<br>> > the guys<br>> > behind SER spent the time not on cosmetic and superficial changes but on<br>> > real improvements. I assume this difference in working style comes from<br>> > the fact that openser is lead by a company that is capitalizing the<br>> > open-source spirit to satisfy the day-to-day needs of it customers<br>> > whereas SER is being maintained by guys who have a long term vision of<br>> > things. While it will surely cost us some time and effort for us the<br>> > decision is already clear that unless openser integrates the SER<br>> > improvements we will go back to SER.<br>> ><br>> > Bye<br>> ><br>> > Kil Il<br>> ><br>> > Rao Ramaratnamma wrote: sorry for reposting -- I<br>> > think this question belongs to both mailing list. I am really stuck
with<br>> > this.<br>> ><br>> > rr<br>> ><br>> > ----- Forwarded Message ----<br>> > From: Rao Ramaratnamma<br>> > To: Christian Schlatter ; users@openser.org<br>> > Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2006 11:15:27 PM<br>> > Subject: Re: [Users] TM : retransmission timers<br>> ><br>> > the ser ottendorf announcement does mention improved timers. Cannot<br>> > openser include this feature too and cannot I merge ser with openser for<br>> > good timers? I am still trying to understand the difference between ser<br>> > and openser but standart compliance seems to be very important matter!<br>> ><br>> > Cannot people provide me with some hints? I am sure that I am not the<br>> > only who is asking the difference between ser and openser. ser<br>> > documentation does not appear uptodate, but the software as sannounced<br>> > appears impressive. I have already asked this
question but did not<br>> > receive any answer.<br>> ><br>> > thank you in advance!<br>> ><br>> > rr<br>> ><br>> > ----- Original Message ----<br>> > From: Christian Schlatter<br>> > To: users@openser.org<br>> > Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2006 10:52:56 PM<br>> > Subject: Re: [Users] TM : retransmission timers<br>> ><br>> > Greg Fausak wrote:<br>> > > Hello,<br>> > ><br>> > > I believe this is a well known bug.<br>> > > Granularity of timers is 1 second. So, if you sign up for a timer to<br>> > > be fired in 1 second it will happen anywhere between 0 seconds and 1<br>> > > second.<br>> > > 2 seconds will happen between 1 and 2 seconds. I usually set up my<br>> > > timers to be 2, 2, 4, 8. There are VOIP providers that are pretty<br>> > > sticky about<br>> > > the first 500ms. If you are using one of them
you're out of luck.<br>> ><br>> > Yes, there is a timer process that wakes up every second to perform<br>> > retransmissions. I was actually quite surprised that OpenSER, which is<br>> > known to be very standards compliant, does not follow the RFC 3261<br>> > retransmission timeouts. On the other hand, the RFC 3261 timeout values<br>> > are just suggestions and standards compliant SIP UA must accept shorter<br>> > timeouts. Still it would be nice if OpenSER would support sub second<br>> > timers, this would allow for shorter fail-over times.<br>> ><br>> > Christian<br>> ><br>> > > I believe SER has made timer changes to support more exact timer<br>> > > intervals. They are a completely different camp, with a different<br>> > > feature set (although they share the same roots).<br>> > ><br>> > > -g<br>> > ><br>> > > On 11/7/06, Jean-François
SMIGIELSKI wrote:<br>> > >> Hello,<br>> > >><br>> > >> I made strange observations about the intervals between<br>> > >> retransmissions with the TM module.<br>> > >> In my experiments, I used the default parameters for the TM module<br>> > >> timers, and I sent an INVITE that cannot receive answers (it has a<br>> > >> well known R-URI pattern that is forwarded to a place and port that<br>> > >> nobody listen).<br>> > >><br>> > >> When reading RFC3261, I expected to see intervals between<br>> > >> retransmissions of |500ms|1s|2s|4s|8s|16s|. 7 transmissions, during<br>> > >> 32s.<br>> > >><br>> > >> But with OpenSER, (I have tested with the debian package 1.1.0-5 on a<br>> > >> debian etch, and the cvs sources for 1.1.0 or 1.0.1compiled by<br>> > >> myself), I can see intervals
like <500ms, 2s, 4s, 4s,4s, ... until 26s<br>> > >> are spent (9 sendings). The first interval is sometomes very short<br>> > >> (40ms).<br>> > >><br>> > >> Altough I like the sequence of 4s separated transmissions, I do not<br>> > >> know why the first interval is so short, and why there is no sending<br>> > >> after 1s.<br>> > >><br>> > >> Did anybody observed such behaviours? Are they normal?<br>> > >><br>> > >> Thanks in advance!<br>> > >><br>> > >> JF Smigielski.<br>> > >><br>> > >><br>> > >> ______________________________________________________________________<br>> > >>__ iBELGIQUE, exprimez-vous !<br>> > >> http://web.ibelgique.com/<br>> > >><br>> > >> _______________________________________________<br>> > >> Users mailing
list<br>> > >> Users@openser.org<br>> > >> http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users<br>> ><br>> > _______________________________________________<br>> > Users mailing list<br>> > Users@openser.org<br>> > http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > _______________________________________________<br>> > Users mailing list<br>> > Users@openser.org<br>> > http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > ---------------------------------<br>> > Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail.<br>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Users mailing list<br>> Users@openser.org<br>>
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users<br>><br>><br>><br>> ---------------------------------<br>> Sponsored Link<br>><br>> Get an Online or Campus degree - Associate's, Bachelor's, or Master's - in<br>> less than one year.<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Users mailing list<br>Users@openser.org<br>http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users<br></mike@mikebwilliams.com></blockquote><br><p> 
<hr size=1>Everyone is raving about <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=42297/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta">the all-new Yahoo! Mail.</a>