The missing UDP packets

[Valentin Micic]

> On 04 Feb 2020, at 10:31, Alexander Petrovsky <askjuise@REDACTED <mailto:askjuise@REDACTED>> wrote:
> 
> Hello!
> 
> The first of all, my erlang version OTP-21.3 (without any minor patches)
> 
> I've got the strange floating problem with UDP to receive, which I couldn't debug by myself. Let me describe briefly what I have: There is UDP socket which used for send packets to many peers and receives responses from them (rate ~1pps):
> 
> send request: SIP options
> receive a response: 100
> receive a response: 200
> 
> In erlang it's implemented like gen_server which receives messages, the sockets options are: binary, {active, once}.
> 
> Every time, when the message is received from the mailbox, code try to do some job, after that try to handle message bursts by calling in the loop (by example 5 times):
> gen_udp:recv(Socket, 0, 0), bursts and after that set the socket option {active, once} back.
> 
> So, here I'm observing floating strange behavior, from time to time the second!! and always the second!! response is absent. I see this UDP missing packets in tcpdump, I don't see any drops in UDP stack at all.
> 
> When I'm trying to add some logs into my erlang code, the problem disappears, when I'm run strace to recvfrom syscall the problem disappears... I't try to debug VM with gdb and make some breakpoints on sock_recvfrom in inet_drv.c (it's OTP-21.3), but the problem disappears (((
> 
> I can't find the problem root cause, is it in my code or is it in VM? Maybe someone could help me with that? 
> 
> -- 
> Петровский Александр / Alexander Petrovsky,
> 
> Skype: askjuise
> Phone: +7 931 9877991
> 


So, I suppose this is related to SIP communication, and I’ll go out on a limb here…

Considering that SIP message, when transported using UDP, must fit into a single UDP message, then, your statement that second and only second response packet is missing, may imply that you are sending response using two UDP packets.

(A) AFAIK, SIP over UDP does not have any continuation, hence, must fit into a single packet.
If you (by any chance) send SIP message over multiple UDP packets, this shouldl not work — saying this just in case.

(B) OTOH, if tcpdump reveals UDP fragmentation (where a single UDP datagram is fragmented over multiple IP packets), then maybe your UDP buffer it to small to assemble the whole message, in which case message might be truncated, and your SIP parser may see it as the part of the message (second!! and always second!!), that’s gone missing.

(C) Finally, when your server processing is too slow for the size of the buffer, then, there’s a chance that receive buffer may get full, in which case it would drop the packet that cannot be added to the receive buffer.

However, judging from your “second!! and always second!!” statement, I’d say that (A) or (B), are more likely, barring something completely different (e.g some other bug, perhaps ;-))

Kind regards

V/


.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20200204/5ebb6182/attachment.htm>