VoIP Mailing List Archives

[anthony.minessale at g...]

The value is calculated for you and is available as a channel variable that can be used
in the cdr template or in your script.

at any time in a current call you have the variables progress_time and progress_media_time
which is a microsecond epoch timestamp (divide it by 1000000 to get regular epoch time)


once the channel has been hungup you have the variables
progresssec pdd to 180 in seconds
progressmsec pdd to 180 in microsec
progress_mediasec pdd to 183 in sec
profress_mediamsec pdd to 183 in microsec



On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 7:55 AM, shehzad p <pmhshz@gmail.com (pmhshz@gmail.com)> wrote:

[pmhshz at gmail.com]

Thanks a lot Minessale, Its great.
"FS rocks"


Anthony Minessale-2 wrote:

[pmhshz at gmail.com]

Hi Minessale,

I got problem with those variables:
all the variables you have suggested remain 0 .
means i get the PDD in 0 seconds or microseconds which is not possible.

Thanks again..


shehzad p wrote:

[anthony.minessale at g...]

the variables would be set on the b leg of the call not the a leg so you would get them
from the cdr.

Since this is a pain for some people I added code so this information will be set on the A leg too
so update and try it now


On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:19 AM, shehzad p <pmhshz@gmail.com (pmhshz@gmail.com)> wrote:

[wasim at convergence.pk]

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Anthony Minessale <anthony.minessale@gmail.com (anthony.minessale@gmail.com)> wrote:

[pmhshz at gmail.com]

Its works, cool!
Thanks Minessale again
and also thanks to those all related to development of FS
FS rocks!

Anthony Minessale-2 wrote:

[pmhshz at gmail.com]

Hi again,
Now i found two pdds one for A leg and one for B leg
Both is different B leg's pdd is lower then A's pdd.

Will any body let me know how PDD is calculated for both legs in FS.

Thanks


shehzad p wrote:

[anthony.minessale at g...]

How much lower?
it's microsecond accuracy afterall.

There is just a timestamp set when a 180 or 183 is received.
its calculated by subtracting that time from the time the call origination started.


On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 3:09 AM, shehzad p <pmhshz@gmail.com (pmhshz@gmail.com)> wrote:

[pmhshz at gmail.com]

Difference is about 100 to 300
Yes as it is in measured in microseconds, no need to consider that
difference
Its Great!


Anthony Minessale-2 wrote:

[anthony.minessale at g...]

now you can use those 2 values to calculate how many microseconds it took to pass 180 from leg b to leg a


On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 4:28 AM, shehzad p <pmhshz@gmail.com (pmhshz@gmail.com)> wrote:

[pmhshz at gmail.com]

Hi again,

Today when I calculated the PDD with ngrep:
I got following ngrep trace :Only invite and 183 is displayed here (note the
time stamp):
######################################################
U 2008/10/31 02:58:47.480059 xx.xx.xxx.xx:5060 -> fs.fs.fsfs.fs:5060
INVITE sip:12127773456@fs.fs.fsfs.fs SIP/2.0.

U 2008/10/31 02:58:49.982140 fs.fs.fsfs.fs:5060 -> xx.xx.xxx.x:5060
SIP/2.0 183 Session Progress.
######################################################

In my code I got 2540 figure in "progressmsec" variable, for above test
call.
As previously told we are getting this in microseconds, converting it into
seconds will give 0.0025 seconds.

But above ngrep shows that it is minimum 2.5 seconds.

So I think PDD given by "progressmsec" is in milliseconds and NOT
mircoseconds.
Is it correct?

Thanks
MSP


Anthony Minessale-2 wrote:

[anthony.minessale at g...]

correct progressusec is microseconds.


On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 5:04 AM, shehzad p <pmhshz@gmail.com (pmhshz@gmail.com)> wrote:

[msc at freeswitch.org]

Shezad,

progressmsec is indeed milliseconds. Microseconds are listed as usec. See here for more info:
http://wiki.freeswitch.org/wiki/Mod_xml_cdr#Examples

It specifies which values are seconds, milliseconds, and microseconds. It also has a sample XML CDR record to look at which contains the same kinds of variables that you are pulling info from.

-MC

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:04 AM, shehzad p <pmhshz@gmail.com (pmhshz@gmail.com)> wrote:

[pmhshz at gmail.com]

Thanks Michael, for your kind support.
My misunderstanding is resolved now.

MSP


Michael S Collins-2 wrote: