Good day,
I write because I have a problem with my FreeSWITCH. The platform works well and out calls normally configured by the telephone provider, but lately I've had a problem with some long calls.
The problem is that sometimes the answering machine answers the called, and the other phones that also answers the answering calls by default. This makes call durations have up to 2 hours 30 minutes, where the answering speaking, and as no call this cut is kept active, which increases the costs unnecessarily.
I wonder if there is way to configure FreeSWITCH for all calls have a predetermined maximum duration. I've seen a module in FreeSWITCH (http://wiki.freeswitch.org/wiki/Misc._Dialplan_Tools_sched_hangup), allegedly used to this but do not understand how it is used.
I would appreciate if anyone knows how to use this module, or I can give solution to this problem to avoid such long duration, or identify when an answering machine message sends tone after the call to cut
Look at the sched_hangup application.
http://wiki.freeswitch.org/wiki/Misc._Dialplan_Tools_sched_hangup
Related
I heard there are some ways to modify linux such that an particular application can obtain very low latency such that whenver it ask resources, the OS will try to give it the resource as soon as possible, kind of overriding the default preemptive multitasking mechanism, I dont have a CS background, but the application I am working-on is very latency-sensitive, can anyone tell me are there any docs/stuff on this specific matter? many thanks.
Guaranteed low-latency response is called the real time capability. It means that timing goals that are realistic are guaranteed to be met.
There is a project for it called RTLinux. See the Real-Time Linux Wiki: https://rt.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page
There are two real time models :
soft real time system - you get it by applying RT preempt kernel patches. I think it guaranties context switch within 10 ms. The goal of this project is to conform to hard real time requirements
hard real time system - have stricter guaranties (response of 1 ms). There are some libraries (like xenomai) that claim they provide hard real time system.
At work we're discussing the design of a new platform and one of the upper management types said it needed to run our current code base (C on Linux) but be real time because it needed to respond in less than a second to various inputs. I pointed out that:
That point doesn't mean it needs to be "real time" just that it needs a faster clock and more streamlining in its interrupt handling
One of the key points to consider is the OS that's being used. They wanted to stick with embedded Linux, I pointed out we need an RTOS. Using Linux will prevent "real time" because of the kernel/user space memory split thus I/O is done via files and sockets which introduce a delay
What we really need to determine is if it needs to be deterministic (needs to respond to input in <200ms 90% of the time for example).
Really in my mind if point 3 is true, then it needs to be a real time system, and then point 2 is the biggest consideration.
I felt confident answering, but then I was thinking about it later... What do others think? Am I on the right track here or am I missing something?
Is there any difference that I'm missing between a "real time" system and one that is just "deterministic"? And besides a RTC and a RTOS, am I missing anything major that is required to execute a true real time system?
Look forward to some great responses!
EDIT:
Got some good responses so far, looks like there's a little curiosity about my system and requirements so I'll add a few notes for those who are interested:
My company sells units in the 10s of thousands, so I don't want to go over kill on the price
Typically we sell a main processor board and an independent display. There's also an attached network of other CAN devices.
The board (currently) runs the devices and also acts as a webserver sending basic XML docs to the display for end users
The requirements come in here where management wants the display to be updated "quickly" (<1s), however the true constraints IMO come from the devices that can be attached over CAN. These devices are frequently motor controlled devices with requirements including "must respond in less than 200ms".
You need to distinguish between:
Hard realtime: there is an absolute limit on response time that must not be breached (counts as a failure) - e.g. this is appropriate for example when you are controlling robotic motors or medical devices where failure to meet a deadline could be catastrophic
Soft realtime: there is a requirement to respond quickly most of the time (perhaps 99.99%+), but it is acceptable for the time limit to be occasionally breached providing the response on average is very fast. e.g. this is appropriate when performing realtime animation in a computer game - missing a deadline might cause a skipped frame but won't fundamentally ruin the gaming experience
Soft realtime is readily achievable in most systems as long as you have adequate hardware and pay sufficient attention to identifying and optimising the bottlenecks. With some tuning, it's even possible to achieve in systems that have non-deterministic pauses (e.g. the garbage collection in Java).
Hard realtime requires dedicated OS support (to guarantee scheduling) and deterministic algorithms (so that once scheduled, a task is guaranteed to complete within the deadline). Getting this right is hard and requires careful design over the entire hardware/software stack.
It is important to note that most business apps don't require either: in particular I think that targeting a <1sec response time is far away from what most people would consider a "realtime" requirement. Having said that, if a response time is explicitly specified in the requirements then you can regard it as soft realtime with a fairly loose deadline.
From the definition of the real-time tag:
A task is real-time when the timeliness of the activities' completion is a functional requirement and correctness condition, rather than merely a performance metric. A real-time system is one where some (though perhaps not all) of the tasks are real-time tasks.
In other words, if something bad will happen if your system responds too slowly to meet a deadline, the system needs to be real-time and you will need a RTOS.
A real-time system does not need to be deterministic: if the response time randomly varies between 50ms and 150ms but the response time never exceeds 150ms then the system is non-deterministic but it is still real-time.
Maybe you could try to use RTLinux or RTAI if you have sufficient time to experiment with. With this, you can keep the non realtime applications on the linux, but the realtime applications will be moved to the RTOS part. In that case, you will(might) achieve <1second response time.
The advantages are -
Large amount of code can be re-used
You can manually partition realtime and non-realtime tasks and try to achieve the response <1s as you desire.
I think migration time will not be very high, since most of the code will be in linux
Just on a sidenote be careful about the hardware drivers that you might need to run on the realtime part.
The following architecture of RTLinux might help you to understand how this can be possible.
It sounds like you're on the right track with the RTOS. Different RTOSs prioritize different things either robustness or speed or something. You will need to figure out if you need a hard or soft RTOS and based on what you need, how your scheduler is going to be driven. One thing is for sure, there is a serious difference betweeen using a regular OS and a RTOS.
Note: perhaps for the truest real time system you will need hard event based resolution so that you can guarantee that your processes will execute when you expect them too.
RTOS or real-time operating system is designed for embedded applications. In a multitasking system, which handles critical applications operating systems must be
1.deterministic in memory allocation,
2.should allow CPU time to different threads, task, process,
3.kernel must be non-preemptive which means context switch must happen only after the end of task execution. etc
SO normal windows or Linux cannot be used.
example of RTOS in an embedded system: satellites, formula 1 cars, CAR navigation system.
Embedded System: System which is designed to perform a single or few dedicated functions.
The system with RTOS: also can be an embedded system but naturally RTOS will be used in the real-time system which will need to perform many functions.
Real-time System: System which can provide the output in a definite/predicted amount of time. this does not mean the real-time systems are faster.
Difference between both :
1.normal Embedded systems are not Real-Time System
2. Systems with RTOS are real-time systems.
I'm currently in an early phase of developing a mobile app that depends heavily on timestamps.
A master device is connected to several client devices over wifi, and issues various commands to these. When the client devices receive commands, they need to mark the (relative) timestamp when the command is executed.
While all this is simple enough, I haven't come up with a solution for how to deal with clock differences. For example, the master device might have its clock at 12:01:01, while client A is on 12:01:02 and client B on 12:01:03. Mostly, I can expect these devices to be set to similar times, as they sync over NTP. However, the nature of my application requires ms precision, so therefore I would like to safeguard against discrepancies.
A short delay between issuing a command and executing the command is fine, however an incorrect timestamp of when that command was executed is not.
So far, I'm thinking of something along the line of having the master device ping each client device to determine transaction time, and then request the client to send their "local" time. Based on this, I can calculate what the time difference is between master and client. Once the time difference is know, the client can adapt its timestamps accordingly.
I am not very familiar with networking though, and I suspect that pinging a device is not a very reliable method of establishing transaction time, since a lot factors apply, and latency may change.
I assume that there are many real-world settings where such timing issues are important, and thus there should be solutions already. Does anyone know of any? Is it enough to simply divide response time by two?
Thanks!
One heads over to RFC 5905 for NTPv4 and learns from the folks who really have put their noodle to this problem and how to figure it out.
Or you simply make sure NTP is working properly on your servers so that you don't have this problem in the first place.
I am a beginning C programmer (though not a beginning programmer) looking to dive into a project to teach myself C. My project is music-based, and because of this I am curious whether there are any 'best practices' per-se, when it comes to timing functions.
Just to clarify, my project is pretty much an attempt to build some barebones music notation/composition software (remember, emphasis on barebones). I was originally thinking about using OSX as my platform, but I want to do it in C, not Obj-C (though I know it would probably be easier...CoreAudio looked like a pretty powerful tool for this kind of stuff). So even though I don't have to build OSX apps in Obj-C, I will probably end up building this on a linux system (probably debian...).
Thanks everyone, for your great answers.
There are two accurate methods for timing functions:
Single process execution.
Timer event handler / callback
Single Process Execution
Most modern computers execute more than one program simultaneously. Actually, they execute pieces of many programs, swapping them out based on priorities and other metrics to look like more than one program is executing at the same time. This overhead effects timing in programs. Either the program gets delayed in reading the time or the OS gets delayed in setting its own time variables.
The solution in this case is to eliminate as many tasks from running. The ideal environment is for best accuracy is to have your program as the sole program running. Some OSes provide API for superuser applications to block all other programs or kill them.
Timer event handling / callback
Since the OS can't be trusted to execute your program with high precision, most OS's will provide Timer APIs. Many of these APIs include the ability to call one of your functions when the timer expires. This is known as a callback function. Other OS's may send a message or generate an event when the timer expires. These fall under the class of timer handlers. The callback process has less overhead than the handlers and thus is more accurate.
Music Hardware
Although you may have your program send music to the speakers, many computers now have separate processors that play music. This frees up the main processor and provides more continuous notes, rather than sounds separated by silent gaps due to platform overhead of your program send the next sounds to the speaker.
A quality music processor has at least these to functions:
Start Playing
End Music Notification
Start Playing
This is the function where you tell the music processor where your data is and the size of the data. The processor will start playing the music.
End Music Notification
You provide the processor with a pointer to a function that it will call when the music data has been processed. Nice processors will call the function early so there will be no gaps in the sounds while reloading.
All of this is platform dependent and may not be standard across platforms.
Hope this helps.
This is quite a vast area, and, depending on exactly what you want to do, potentially very difficult.
You don't give much away by saying your project is "music based".
Is it a musical score typesetting program?
Is it processing audio?
Is it filtering MIDI data?
Is it sequencing MIDI data?
Is it generating audio from MIDI data
Does it only perform playback?
Does it need to operate in a real time environment?
Your question though hints at real time operation, so in that case...
The general rule when working in a real time environment is don't do anything which may block the real time thread. This includes:
Calling free/malloc/calloc/etc (dynamic memory allocation/deallocation).
File I/O.any
Use of spinlocks/semaphores/mutexes upon threads.
Calls to GUI code.
Calls to printf.
Bearing these considerations in mind for a real time music application, you're going to have to learn how to do multi-threading in C and how to pass data from the UI/GUI thread to the real time thread WITHOUT breaking ANY of the above restrictions.
For an open source real time audio (and MIDI) (routing) server take a look at http://jackaudio.org
gettimeofday() is the best for wall clock time. getrusage() is the best for CPU time, although it may not be portable. clock() is more portable for CPU timing, but it may have integer overflow.
This is pretty system-dependent. What OS are you using?
You can take a look at gettimeofday() for fairly high granularity. It should work ok if you just need to read time once in awhile.
SIGALRM/setitimer can be used to receive an interrupt periodically. Additionally, some systems have higher level libraries for dealing with time.
Where can I find benchmarks on different networking architectures?
I am playing with sockets / threads / forks and I'd like to know what the best is. I was thinking there has got to be a place where someone has already spelled out all the pros and cons of different architectures for a socket service, listed benchmarks with code that runs.
Ultimately I'd like to run these various configurations with my own code and see which runs best in different circumstances.
Many people I talk to say that I should just use single threaded select. But I see an argument for threads when you're storing state information inside the thread to keep code simple. What is the trade off mark for writing my own state structure vs using a proven thread architecture.
I've also been told forking is bad... but when you need 12000 connections on a machine that cannot raise the open file per process limit, forking is an option! Forking is also a nice option for stability when you've got one process that needs restarting, it doesn't disturb the others.
Sorry, this is one of my longer questions... so many variables are left empty.
Thanks,
Chenz
edit: here's the link I was looking for, which is a whole paper answering your question. http://www.kegel.com/c10k.html
There are web servers designed along all three models (fork, thread, select). People like to benchmark web servers.
http://www.lighttpd.net/benchmark
Libevent has some benchmarks and links to stuff about how to choose a select() vs. threaded model, generally in favour of using the libevent model.
http://monkey.org/~provos/libevent/
It's very difficult to answer this question as so much depends on what your service is actually doing. Does it have to query a database? read files from the filesystem? perform complicated calculations? go off and talk to some other service? Also, how long-lived are client connections? Might connections have some semantic interaction with other connections, or are they all treated as independent of each other? Might you want to think about load-balancing your service across multiple servers later? (If so, you might usefully think about that now so that any necessary help can be designed in from the start.)
As you hint, the serving machine might have limits which interact with the various techniques, steering you towards one answer or another. You have a per-process file descriptor limit, but remember that you may also have a fixed size process table! How many concurrent clients are you expecting, anyway?
If your service keeps crashing and you need to keep restarting it or you think you want a multi-process model so that connections are isolated from each other, you're probably doing it wrong. Stability is extremely important in this sort of context, and that means good practice and memory hygiene, both in general and in the face of network-based attacks.
Remember the history... fork() is cheap in the Unix world, but spawning new processes relatively expensive on Windows. OTOH, Windows threads are lightweight, whereas threading has always been a bit alien to Unix and only relatively recently become widespread.