RTPProxy version / package

[Jerome Martin]

Mark, Jan,

First of all, thanks for your kind answers and Happy New Year to you :-)

On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 13:57 +0100, Jan Janak wrote:
> Mark, Jerome,
> 
> The problem with rtpproxy versioning is that there isn't any. The CVS
> repository for rtpproxy is here:
> 
> http://cvs.berlios.de/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/ser/rtpproxy/
> 
> I have talked to Maxim already (the rtpproxy author) and he said he
> would fix it, I introduced 0.2 and 0.3 with his permission meanwhile.

OK, I understand the situation. I agree that a CVS date tag would be
less confusing (at least IMHO). I was in doubt, because I had lots of
trouble with 0.3, and I was wondering if it was a different branch than
0.2 or just a more up-to-date version of the same branch.

> I should have probably based the version numbers on the date of cvs
> repository checkout, to avoid confusion.

Yep.

> We had some problems with UNIX domain sockets under really high load
> where rtpproxy would block the SIP proxy server, that is the reason why
> the default configuration file is using UDP sockets instead of UNIX
> domain sockets.

OK, I'll default to loopback UDP too then. I just hope this doesn't add
too much average delay vs. unix sockets.

> Let me know if you have any other questions.

Well, if you have any pointers to docs (commands, meaning of the A/B/C/D
stats fetched from 'I', etc.), I could really use them. Also, I was
wondering about kernel or /proc optimization that would help handling
lots of small packets ...

Most of my problem, however, is about call quality : with only 50 RTP
sessions on an underloaded bi-xeon 3.2Ghz and a stock sarge kernel, my
users do notice a slight voice quality degradation (in G.729), without
me being able to trace that to a cause other than adding rtpproxy in the
path. Also, with the 0.3 version, I had lots of "rtpproxy return invalid
port number 0" under a not-so-heavy load of maybe 10cps for a total of
50 to 100 sessions - could that be related to using unix sockets instead
of UDP ?

Best Regards,
Jerome Martin