lost packets when server gets 'stressed'

[jbaramidze]

Hello.

I'm using coturn server to relay data. I'm using TCP protocol, and when I send too much data together (ChannelData messages themself are small, but I send lot of them together), receiving side starts losing packets. question is: why does this happen? why doesn't it stop accepting new packets instead if it cannot relay them so quickly? logs don't even show any warning. How can I avoid it? is the only solution to add some layer on top of those packets to make sure they get delivered before sending new ones? like implementing 'pseudo-tcp' layer?

here's how I reproduce it:

turnutils_uclient -T -v -y -z 1 -l 500 -n 300 -u user1 -w pass1 server1

[mom040267]

TURN was optimized for media applications. Dropping the packets is a more
efficient approach than end-to-end throughput check.

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 8:06 AM, Zhani Baramidze notifications@github.com
wrote:

Hello.

I'm using coturn server to relay data. I'm using TCP protocol, and when I
send too much data together (ChannelData messages themself are small, but I
send lot of them together), receiving side starts losing packets. question
is: why does this happen? why doesn't it stop accepting new packets instead
if it cannot relay them so quickly? logs don't even show any warning. How
can I avoid it? is the only solution to add some layer on top of those
packets to make sure they get delivered before sending new ones? like
implementing 'pseudo-tcp' layer?

here's how I reproduce it:

turnutils_uclient -T -v -y -z 1 -l 500 -n 300 -u user1 -w pass1 server1

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#51, or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFq2UAJBREDa3bYkPT9_De5_nWcbP5S-ks5qW5aTgaJpZM4JOz5L
.

[jbaramidze]

what's the point of using TCP to talk to coturn then? if packets may still get lost?

[jbaramidze]

I was investigating code, can you please tell me at which part does the packets get lost?

[mom040267]

The only real reason to use TCP is to avoid limitations that some firewalls are setting on UDP.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 19, 2016, at 12:59 AM, Zhani Baramidze notifications@github.com wrote:

what's the point of using TCP to talk to coturn then? if packets may still get lost?

—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[mom040267]

I do not have code right now before me but search for congestion control stuff.

I do not advise changing that part - the result may be unexpected and unpleasant.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 19, 2016, at 12:59 AM, Zhani Baramidze notifications@github.com wrote:

what's the point of using TCP to talk to coturn then? if packets may still get lost?

—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[qvbige240]

I'm using coturn server to relay data and have the same problem. Have a reliable data transmission version or branch using TCP? if just modify the variable "tcp_congestion_control " to 0, still lost packets