[asterisk-bugs] [Asterisk 0018296]: Asterisk do not respect priority between queued calls at high load

[Asterisk Bug Tracker]

A NOTE has been added to this issue. 
====================================================================== 
https://issues.asterisk.org/view.php?id=18296 
====================================================================== 
Reported By:                Tomtom87
Assigned To:                
====================================================================== 
Project:                    Asterisk
Issue ID:                   18296
Category:                   Applications/app_queue
Reproducibility:            random
Severity:                   minor
Priority:                   normal
Status:                     feedback
Asterisk Version:           1.6.2.11 
JIRA:                       SWP-2612 
Regression:                 No 
Reviewboard Link:            
SVN Branch (only for SVN checkouts, not tarball releases): N/A 
SVN Revision (number only!):  
Request Review:              
====================================================================== 
Date Submitted:             2010-11-11 17:19 CST
Last Modified:              2010-12-07 11:45 CST
====================================================================== 
Summary:                    Asterisk do not respect priority between queued
calls at high load
Description: 
I am running an Asterisk server in a call center environment. 
Since months, when there are many calls (usually when the system goes over
15 -20 incoming calls), the priority between queues is not respected
anymore for some calls randomly. The priority inside each queue is well
respected, but not between several queues.
All queues concerned have the same weight

There is no announcement in the queues that could avoid the caller to be
bridged with a member at the right moment.

I AM RUNNING ASTERISK 1.6.2.13

What I found strange is that at the moment the following caller has to be
bridged, the moh is stopped and restarted on the channel that should
normally be bridged now. But then Asterisk bridges another channel. 

====================================================================== 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 (0129413) Tomtom87 (reporter) - 2010-12-07 11:45
 https://issues.asterisk.org/view.php?id=18296#c129413 
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Hi !

Thanks for taking care of this issue.

In order to elaborate on what is the actual problem, here is what is
happening and what is expected in terms of call flow, for the example taken
in "Additionnal information" : 

Expected :

1) Local/0105 is a member of queues "science" and "maths_1"
2) Agent Local/0105 is busy
3) Caller "Caller1"(DAHDI/17-1) enters queue science
4) Caller "Caller2"(DAHDI/4-1)enters queue science
5) Caller "Caller3"(DAHDI/3-1) enters queue maths_1
6) Agent Local/0105 Hangup and becomes available
7) Asterisk connects Caller1 to member (Local/0105)


Happening :

1) Local/0105 is a member of queues "science" and "maths_1"
2) Agent Local/0105 is busy
3) Caller "Caller1"(DAHDI/17-1) enters queue science
4) Caller "Caller2"(DAHDI/4-1)enters queue science
5) Caller "Caller3"(DAHDI/3-1) enters queue maths_1
6) Agent 105 Hangup and becomes available
7) Asterisk connects Caller3 to member (Local/0105)

 
The difference is in step7: Asterisk is bridging a caller that has been
waiting less time than other callers. This is what i meant by "not
respecting the priority between queues".

This is just an example, I have dozens of other cases each day over about
an hundred calls. Those cases happen when there are a lot of callers in the
queues. 

Nevertheless, I noticed in all cases that Asterisk always respects the
priority between callers of the same queue.

About the fact that this might be related to the use of Local channels as
queue members, I am loging the members using for example :

exten => s,n,addQueueMember(science,Local/0105 at profs/n,,,105-John
Smith,SIP/410)

Therefore, shouldn't Asterisk monitor the SIP channel due to the last
argument of "addqueuemember" ?

Thank You

Thomas 

Issue History 
Date Modified    Username       Field                    Change               
====================================================================== 
2010-12-07 11:45 Tomtom87       Note Added: 0129413                          
======================================================================