They are two different gateways with two different names, but the same IP address yet the port is different. Possible that limit subsystem is imposing the limit on the IP address itself and not able to distinguish between the different ports. On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:49 PM, Muhammad Naseer Bhatti <nbhatti@gmail.com> wrote:
Possible but here is the problem. When limit is set against two of the gateways,
session:execute("limit", "hash gateway_channels v132_5000 10") session:execute("limit", "hash gateway_channels v132_5010 10")
It sets limit of 10 channels for each gateway. But when the bridge is made,
[gateway=v132_5010]sofia/gateway/v132_5010/9198|[gateway=v132_5000]sofia/gateway/v132_5000/9198
The limit is imposed on both gateways.
2012-05-27 22:13:48.371539 [INFO] switch_limit.c:126 incr called: gateway_channels_v132_5000 max:10, interval:0 2012-05-27 22:13:48.371539 [INFO] mod_hash.c:202 Usage for gateway_channels_v132_5000 is now 3/10 2012-05-27 22:13:48.371539 [INFO] switch_limit.c:126 incr called: gateway_channels_v132_5010 max:10, interval:0 2012-05-27 22:13:48.371539 [INFO] mod_hash.c:202 Usage for gateway_channels_v132_5010 is now 3/10
Is this is a bug or supposed to work like this? Though the call is connected to gateway name v132_5010 only.
Thanks.
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Avi Marcus <avi@avimarcus.net> wrote:
How about a bridge2, bridge3, etc variable? Then your static dialplan can see if those are set, and if so, use them.
-Avi
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Muhammad Naseer Bhatti <nbhatti@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, I am trying to implement a gateway failover functionality with lua. Right now I am using limit and using hash backend to limit number of channels to each gateway. Since I am forwarding all calls with a default dialplan which is sending all calls to application lua and the bridge is done outside lua setting all the necessary vars. The idea is if all channels of first gateway are occupied, send the call to second gateway in the list and so on. Any idea how to implement this with lua? Can not seem to find the logic. If I query with limit_status it is going to be a query on every call. In a high call volume scenario, I don't think this would be really a good choice. Any ideas, thoughts?
Thanks.
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
_________________________________________________________________________ Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services: consulting@freeswitch.org http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
FreeSWITCH-powered IP PBX: The CudaTel Communication Server http://www.cudatel.com
Official FreeSWITCH Sites http://www.freeswitch.org http://wiki.freeswitch.org http://www.cluecon.com
Join Us At ClueCon - Aug 7-9, 2012
FreeSWITCH-users mailing list FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org